Mandatory DEI Statements Must Be Eliminated

The University should immediately eliminate mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements from all decision making. Universities are meant to be spaces where a wide variety of perspectives and ideas can be explored without fear of institutional pressure. When applicants are required to write DEI statements, they may feel compelled to adopt or perform a particular ideological stance to remain competitive, rather than expressing their genuine views. This undermines the principle that academic advancement should be based on merit, scholarship, and teaching ability rather than adherence to a prescribed political or social framework.

DEI statements become ideological litmus tests that undermine viewpoint diversity. They reward applicants whose statements align with the faculty’s prevailing ideology while penalizing those who hold alternative but reasonable views. Candidates are incentivized to submit statements designed to appeal to the ideological preferences of the current faculty even if their true views and priorities differ from the institution’s preferred narrative. Statements thus end up promoting mendacity and conformity, not diversity in any meaningful sense.

There is scant evidence that selecting candidates based on acceptable DEI attitudes produce any benefits either to scholarship within the academy or contributions to the community in general. Nor is there good evidence that DEI training produces sustained meaningful benefits or that implicit bias test are effective at diagnosing prejudice or reduce bias or discrimination.

Mandatory DEI statements also divert attention away from the core missions of universities: teaching, research, and the pursuit of knowledge. While inclusivity is valuable, embedding it as a compulsory element of every hiring and admissions process risks displacing merit-based assessment. Candidates may be evaluated less for their academic accomplishments or promise as researchers and educators, and more for how convincingly they articulate certain social commitments. This undermines both excellence and fairness by distorting the criteria of evaluation.

Finally, eliminating mandatory DEI statements would not prevent universities from pursuing more meaningful and relevant diversity through outreach, mentoring, and structural reforms without the downsides of compulsory DEI declarations. A more balanced approach would allow candidates to highlight experience they deem relevant, without penalizing those who highlight other equally important attributes, or undermining fairness, intellectual openness, and academic freedom. Good intentions are often a poor measure of good results, and that has proved to be the case with mandatory DEI statements.  It is time to move on.