Dear Editors-in-Chief,
110 days. That was how long it took my writing to be mutilated and published in the Maroon. As a long-time editor for our paper, I thought I was well-acquainted with the Maroon’s values before I set out to write this piece. I was mistaken. In the five months that I fought to publish my work, I learned a great deal about the Maroon’s priorities. Alarmingly, I found they are dictated by an enigmatic, unelected, and unaccountable body: the DEI Board (DEIB). I write to express my concern that the DEIB jeopardizes the Maroon’s integrity in two ways: (1) by wielding unchecked authority over the Maroon’s operations and (2) by enforcing a culture of secrecy in our paper that punishes dissent from the dogma of social justice.
Per the Maroon’s bylaws, the DEIB has two “missions”—one of which is dubious. The first is to create “equity” within our paper by ensuring “transparent and fair promotions,” handling discrimination complaints, and “strengthening outreach practices” to form a “more diverse” staff. These objectives are unambiguous and relatively uncontroversial. The same cannot be said for the second mission of the DEIB: to manage the Maroon’s reporting on issues “directly or indirectly relating to social justice.” The board partially achieves this by acting as a censor, that is, scrutinizing work through the lens of social justice ideals. This may entail issuing edits to content before it can be published. Naturally, the DEIB’s social justice efforts, as defined in our bylaws, present a tension between (1) the Maroon’s “commitment to truth” and (2) a pursuit of equitable reporting.
I argue this tension is not merely theoretical but actively harmful; that is, the DEIB’s social justice agenda already undermines our paper’s credibility. Social justice is an ethos of sanitization; it is characterized by trigger warnings, politically correct language policing, and other mechanisms to neuter reality. Therefore, it is at odds with two of the Maroon’s functions: (1) to approach the truth “from as many perspectives as possible,” and (2) to act as an “equitable paper of record” for the University and the South Side. Our bylaws mandate that the DEIB filters content based on social justice ideals. As a result, perspectives that disagree with them are necessarily stifled. While potentially unpopular, such views are nevertheless necessary for conveying the full truth and ensuring our paper is an “equitable” platform representing diverse voices in our community. Ultimately, for the Maroon to be a credible “paper of record,” it must present facts as they are—not as they ought to be. The DEIB’s social justice agenda undermines this mission by compelling the board to prioritize narrative over reality.
These ideas raise the issue of the DEIB’s transparency or lack thereof. One can reasonably dismiss the aforementioned characterizations of social justice as unfounded. It may well be that the Maroon has enacted social justice in a way that is impartial and otherwise in keeping with our paper’s core values. However, this begs the question: What constitutes social justice in the DEIB’s view? That is a mystery. The bylaws employ the term but do not provide a definition. The DEI Writing Guidelines mention that indirect instances of social justice are “socioeconomic, racial,” and “gender-based” but do not actually define social justice either. Does “social justice” only entail content warnings for material that may “traumatiz[e the Maroon’s] copy editors”? Is it political? If so, how does the DEIB reconcile its commitment to social justice with impartiality? These questions go unanswered in the bylaws and other resources available to writers and editors.
This is to say that “social justice” is inherently subjective. Even if one does not conceive of it as an ethos of sanitization, it is problematic because it is ill-defined in our bylaws. As a consequence, it can be molded to fit the views of those in power—namely, members of the DEIB. This biases the Maroon’s content; it means decisions made under the banner of social justice (e.g. how content is scrutinized and edited) reflect the personal beliefs of DEIB members rather than a fixed standard of equity and fairness.
This pertains to the DEIB’s arbitrary authority. The board’s jurisdiction borders on absolute; aside from social justice, editors must submit any content to the DEIB that pertains to race, gender/sexuality, religion, or other “sensitive” topics. As a result, the DEIB wields enough power to rival that of the Editors in Chief. Moreover, in addition to being unelected, the DEIB is also unaccountable; the Maroon’s bylaws make no mention of how board members can be removed. The limitations of the DEIB are also unclear. To what extent can the DEIB censor viewpoints that defy its conception of “social justice”? Can editors dispute or override content edits it makes? This is all to suggest that our bylaws place no checks on the DEIB’s power, which allows it to define standards as it pleases.
My personal experience with the DEIB confirms it wields excessive power and has created a culture of secrecy within the Maroon with deleterious consequences. Not once in the past five months did I directly interact with any of its members; the DEIB’s structure is such that writers communicate with it via an intermediary. I submitted my first draft to slate in November. What followed were five months of stonewalling, broken promises, and ignored messages to both the Executive Board and the Viewpoints (VP) editor I was assigned to. At first, I held them responsible for my ordeal because they were the only ones I interfaced with. Eventually, I came to suspect that the DEIB was primarily to blame, not least because I was repeatedly told delays in publishing my piece were due to that board.
Put another way, I was stuck in a vicious cycle for the past five months: namely, submitting a draft to the Executive Board or VP, waiting weeks (if not months) for the DEIB to review my piece, receiving often vague demands about content that had to be censored, and starting the cycle over again. All the while, I witnessed other op-eds submitted, reviewed, and edited within a matter of days. I was also hopelessly confused about what powers I was entitled to over the DEIB. My complaints to the DEIB’s Secure Form—seemingly my only recourse against it—went unanswered. The disrespect I endured became so absurd that I was convinced the DEIB had conspired with the Maroon’s leadership to neutralize my work.
In March, having begged my VP editor for an update, I received a heavily redacted version of the first part of my submission that was sparsely populated with comments. I approved this draft for publication even though it had so distorted my voice that the DEIB might as well have claimed credit for writing it; the end result was not a critique but woke fodder. I was desperate; the alternative was to submit edits and fight against the DEIB to have them reviewed over several weeks, if not months—all the while having little understanding about the standards of social justice my piece was being held to or what recourse I had against them. Part of me suspected the DEIB sought this outcome all along, that it wanted to torment me until I agreed to neuter my work into compliance with its social justice agenda. What was I meant to think? I was undermined at every turn.
Regardless of whether the DEIB had a vendetta against me, the outcome of its actions is pathetically ironic: for all its grandstanding about equity and diversity, the DEIB marginalized one of the few minorities in the Maroon’s ranks.
Is it fair to entirely ascribe my ordeal to the DEIB? Perhaps not. I was told that other factors affected the timeline of my piece, including the length of my original submission and VP being stretched thin due to time- and content-sensitive op-eds regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. That said, the DEIB’s obscurity meant I could not know whether these explanations were genuine or merely excuses to shield it from accountability. What neither I nor anyone within the Maroon should tolerate is a culture of secrecy that (1) affords the DEIB unchecked authority to bowdlerize content under the veneer of “social justice” and (2) tortures contributors by obfuscating the motivations and mechanisms governing our work. Therefore, I call on the Executive Board to mandate that the DEIB be held accountable, that its editorial standards be made comprehensive and impartial, and that its purview is elucidated via amendments to the Maroon’s bylaws.
other alum / Jul 25, 2024 at 10:35 am
If the DEI board is so censorious/tyrannical/etc, how did this op-ed get published?
Arman Rah / Jul 25, 2024 at 3:31 pm
The DEI Board apparatchik at The Maroon must be away from the censorship button while the the DEI Presidential Candidate tries to get elected. Everyone who knows her says she really sucks at her job.
Everyone knows that the DEI folks were let into the University due to lowering of standards in the first place, otherwise they would not have made the cut, so multi tasking is obviously still an executive functioning problem for the Maroon DEI Board.
Joseph C.B., A.B. '88 / Aug 24, 2024 at 9:59 am
How were the others published? After the writer was muzzled and given the run around… who is to say the same didn’t happen for this piece??
Surely the cabal of S.J.W.s did all in their power to silence the truth. The author is a warrior of fact and refused to relent. Justice Thomas is grinning.
You answered your own question!! (Clearly, deductive reasoning is not a strong suit of these new-fangled D.E.I. hires)
stop whining / Jul 24, 2024 at 3:50 pm
Anonymous is a fantastic example of the modern DEI critic- the kind of entitled baby who, when they don’t get their own way in a time frame that suits them, lash out at everyone who might be responsible but themselves. Write an excessively long rant about diversity and have to wait 100 days for it to be published…must be DEI. Not the editorial work required to split it, the competing demands on the student editors. Maybe just acknowledge that briefly before going back to the boogyman. And the quality of the essay – unquestionable (note – it wasn’t very good).
Perhaps DEI isn’t the issue here. Perhaps it’s merit. Perhaps Anonymous just isn’t very good at constructing a well reasoned argument. Perhaps the Maroon’s editorial staff had to work overtime to accommodate a whining, privileged individual whose view on free speech is that others should bend over backwards to allow them to be heard how they want, when they want.
Roman Ab / Jul 25, 2024 at 9:03 am
Sounds like a DEI Board Member has surfaced from the shadows…
Where are the vaunted Chicago Principles in the hidden DEI Board at the Maroon?
Was The University administration aware of the DEI Board and woke mind virus proponents hiding inside the Maroon?
Any funding from The University should be immediately cut off from The Maroon while it permits a DEI censorship board to infect a University institution.
Wait until the donors and alumni and parents find out that their money is being funneled to a hidden DEI Board inside the Maroon. Good luck with that.
What an utter disgrace for The University of Chicago.
stop whining / Jul 25, 2024 at 5:24 pm
No, I have nothing to do with the Maroon beyond reading it. I’m just highlighting the alternative possibilities that Anonymous buries and dismisses in their letter. And that’s the point. Anonymous writes a rant against a DEI board and brings out the trolls, even though they know that their original letter was too long, too badly written, and required a whole bunch of work to edit that the newspaper barely had time for. Who cares about the DEI board?! The Chicago principles have nothing to do with this. You have a right to express yourself. You don’t have a right to force others to work for you in a time frame that you dictate. And it is on that basis that the only thing this letter demonstrates is that Anonymous is an entitled brat
Veritas / Jul 26, 2024 at 12:34 pm
“Who cares about the DEI board?! The Chicago principles have nothing to do with this.”
WOW….
Its clear you are pro-censorship, pro DEI (lowering of standards for people who unable to perform), and a victim of the woke mind virus.
You are the problem, as you are too dumb to understand the problem itself evidently.
Odd are you are the physical embodiment of the lowering of standards at The University.
Ugh again / Aug 22, 2024 at 3:19 pm
It’s truly impressive how you manage to embody the exact entitled attitude you’re attempting to criticize. You drone on about editorial demands and the supposed meritocracy, yet you conveniently ignore the core issue at hand: your own inability to comprehend a critique that threatens your fragile worldview. It’s almost laughable how quickly you dismiss the idea that DEI could be anything other than the flawless, unassailable solution you’ve convinced yourself it is.
Your rant reeks of someone desperate to uphold a status quo that serves your own comfort, all while accusing others of entitlement. The irony is palpable. You accuse the author of lashing out because they didn’t get their way, yet here you are, furiously typing out a self-righteous screed because someone dared to challenge the DEI orthodoxy. How predictable.
Perhaps the real issue isn’t Anonymous’s writing or argument. Perhaps it’s that your so-called defense of meritocracy is just a thin veil for your own inability to grapple with ideas that don’t align with your cushy, pre-packaged beliefs. You claim not to be involved with the Maroon, but your obsessive need to defend it as if it’s your personal fiefdom is telling.
In the end, your response is nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to your self-image as a champion of reason, all while revealing just how hollow and unexamined that image really is.
The only thing you’ve succeeded in proving is that you’re just as entitled, if not more so, than the very person you’re trying to take down.
Take your ad homs and insecurity elsewhere.
Another thing / Aug 22, 2024 at 3:36 pm
“Write an excessively long rant about diversity and have to wait 100 days for it to be published…must be DEI. Not the editorial work required to split it, the competing demands on the student editors. Maybe just acknowledge that briefly before going back to the boogyman.”
They acknowledge alternative explanations explicitly in the final paragraph. But of course it’s easier to resort to cheap insults (“your essay is poorly written,” “you’re an entitled brat,” etc. etc.) than to engage with actual ideas.
Next time, instead of wasting everyone’s time with a diatribe, try reading what’s on the page. That would at least make your critiques somewhat convincing.
Grow up. / Aug 22, 2024 at 6:45 pm
I’ll bite.
Ah, the irony of someone accusing me of entitlement while writing diatribes that reek of baseless arrogance and a clear misunderstanding of the situation at hand. You’ve made several bold claims. Unfortunately, all crumble under the weight of their own contradictions.
>Let’s address the assumption that I’m a petulant child who demanded the Maroon staff cater to my every whim. As an editor myself—something you, with your glaring lack of insight, wouldn’t understand—I am well aware of the chaos that editorial timelines can involve. Unlike you, who presumably has zero affiliation with the Maroon beyond being an occasional reader, I’ve been in the trenches. I know what it’s like to juggle deadlines, to deal with competing priorities, and to manage the countless tasks that go into producing a publication. Let me educate you on a reality that your armchair critiques seem to have missed: I never demanded any special treatment. I was given a timeframe by the editors themselves, which they repeatedly failed to meet without providing sufficient reason. That’s not entitlement; that’s holding people accountable to the standards they set themselves.
But accountability is a foreign concept to you, isn’t it? It’s much easier to throw around ad hominems and try to discredit me with lazy accusations than to engage with the actual substance of my argument. You’ve taken my legitimate concerns about the DEIB and tried to dismiss them as the ramblings of someone who’s just upset they didn’t get their way. How convenient for you. The reality is that my piece went through a labyrinth of delays and obfuscations, not because of any failings on my part, but because of the very issues I outlined: a DEIB with unchecked power and no transparency. I took onboard every shred of feedback that the DEIB offered to appease it. Despite this, I was stonewalled and treated with utter contempt.
> You suggest that the Maroon’s staff had to bend over backwards to accommodate my supposedly “poorly written” work. That’s an interesting take, considering that, upon submission, my piece was deemed well-constructed and slated for publication within weeks. If the Maroon staff later found it problematic or figured they did not have enough bandwith to accommodate it, one has to wonder why they didn’t simply reject it from the start. Instead, it was passed around, edited, re-edited, and delayed without clear communication—indicative of a process more concerned with appeasing the DEIB than with upholding journalistic integrity.
It’s particularly amusing that you, someone with no involvement in the editorial process, feel qualified to comment on the quality of my work. You weren’t there. You didn’t see the back-and-forth, the arbitrary cuts, the demands for changes that ostensibly had more to do with ideological conformity than with improving the piece.
> You then accuse me of burying alternative possibilities in my letter. Perhaps you should take a closer look—or, better yet, try reading it for comprehension. I explicitly acknowledged that other factors could have influenced the timeline of my piece, and I never claimed that the DEIB was solely responsible. What I did claim, and what you so conveniently ignore, is that the DEIB operates in a shroud of secrecy that makes it impossible to determine where their influence begins and ends. This lack of transparency is the crux of my argument, something you seem either unable or unwilling to grasp.
I suggest you take a moment to actually engage with the arguments presented. Otherwise, you’re just another voice in the chorus of those too comfortable with the status quo to question it—louder, perhaps, but just as irrelevant.
All you’ve managed to do is reveal yourself as exactly what you claim to despise: a self-important commentator, too blinded by your own biases to see the flaws in your own argument. Pathetic.
uc student / Jul 24, 2024 at 1:11 pm
dear anonymous author, can you post in a comment a link to the text of your original piece before the edits you were asked to make, and also share screenshots of their comments & critiques? this way we can make up our own minds in a more informed manner. Til then, I have nowhere near enough concrete info to form a decision opinion on this matter.
Ploni Almoni / Jul 22, 2024 at 10:22 pm
The assertions here are serious, and call into question the validity of The Maroon’s claim to be UChicago’s paper of record that forms part of the organization’s charter.
I think it’d be good to see the DEI Board respond publicly to them.
Michael W. / Jul 22, 2024 at 9:20 am
I hadn’t thought about the Maroon since 1989, but after seeing an article of someone shot to death on 57th St., links led me to the site. As a local news website, I thought I would explore a bit to see how the university has changed since I was there in the 80s, and imagine my disappointment to find this DEIB nonsense going on. What nonsense is this? Are you telling me that you’re literally worried about somebody being mentally traumatized by reading something that someone wrote, is everyone so weak minded that they can’t handle the truth? My disappointment at the way, this fine institution has evolved is extreme.
Ron DeS / Jul 19, 2024 at 7:31 pm
A DEI BOARD?!?!?
WTF
WTF has happened to The University!!!!!!
Flush the DEI Board down the drain from which it crawled out.
This is an utter disgrace.