March 21, 2025 - 9:30pm
The University of California (UC) System announced on 19 March that it would end mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in hiring considerations. “To be clear, stand-alone diversity statements will no longer be permitted in recruitments,” UC System Provost Katherine Newman wrote in a letter to UC administrators.
The UC System’s announcement is a big deal, even compared to other major universities that have recently rolled back DEI programmes. That’s because the University of California at Berkeley was one of the key institutions that introduced diversity considerations in hiring rubrics, where applicants could lose points for stating that they will treat all students equally regardless of race.
UC-Berkeley’s diversity hiring rubric was subsequently adopted by many universities across the United States. And although the UC System itself never had an official policy requiring diversity statements in hiring, many UC departments considered diversity statements a key part of the hiring process. Faculty have detailed how these requirements serve as political loyalty oaths, hurting free expression, with behind-the-scenes emails showing outright consideration of race in hiring. Thanks to the general momentum against DEI, that practice is now slipping away.
UC is also under close scrutiny by the Trump administration over the poor handling of student unrest following the 7 October Hamas terror attacks as well as participating in race-exclusionary practices. And now more than ever, no university wants to be caught on the wrong end of a direct attack by the administration. Just look at Columbia University, which is desperately trying to restore $400 million in lost federal funds by meeting demands from the Trump administration, including banning masks and strengthening student discipline policies.
Even if Columbia complies with the demands, there’s no guarantee that the federal funds will be restored. The direct probe into Columbia has created mayhem, disrupting research and provoking conflict among faculty. The University of California System, which is struggling with its own financial issues, can’t afford to halt any public funds. So, it is better for the system to be proactive and end diversity statements than to risk attention from the administration.
UC’s elimination of diversity statements comes after major public universities in non-Republican dominated states, Michigan and Virginia, ended DEI practices. California’s elimination of diversity statements, then, strengthens the anti-DEI movement. But that doesn’t mean faculty and administration will get on board immediately or that DEI is permanently gone.
For instance, the University of Michigan’s nursing school rebranded its DEI activities even after the university ended DEI considerations in hiring. For California, Newman’s letter indicated that faculty could still be rewarded for engaging in DEI activities during the academic review process. This means DEI practices could remain standard in some departments. That’s a much deeper issue that cannot solely be addressed by eliminating diversity statements in hiring. But the University of California’s retreat from mandatory DEI statements shows DEI proponents are losing steam — fast.
Neetu Arnold is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on X @neetu_arnold
neetu_arnold
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis article continues to raise the ‘elephant in the room’ question for the Left:
What is it that drives and compels so many Leftists to institutionalize rac|sm in America while they hold power within such institutions and are left to their own devices? Even going so far as to demand that the very word ‘rac|sm’ be redefined so they can practice the same without the restraint of moral conscience or equality that exists within enlightened societies?
I’m quite curious from an observational point of view.
I suspect it’s something embedded deep within the human psyche.
One could ask whence medieval flagellants, or the wearing of sackcloth and ashes. Many carry a guilt complex within them and a postmodern manifestation is to do penance for what is purported to be the ‘sins’ of our forefathers, by seeking to raise up those seen as victims whilst denigrating those deemed to be oppressors.
There’s also something very performative about it. Those in medieval times made sure they carried out their penances very publically (publicly?) indeed.
Yet others don’t feel this need, and see its atavistic nature clearly enough. The question for me is what is it within human nature, that drives the difference?
“Performative” is exactly the word. Everything about the left is performative. The essence of their morality is performative.
What drives DEI is mediocrity. It is a way of securing positions in universities other than on merit using bogus arguments about racism as an excuse. It’s as simple as that.
The Left lives by sneaking. They will continue to do exactly the same thing while calling it something different. Words for them have no fixed meaning.
Reply to Lancashire Lad:
I think you are being unfair to medieval penitents. Thomas More wore a hair shirt most of his life, even beneath his official regalia, without anyone knowing about it.
It is progress but the Democrats haven’t gone away you know.
DEI is code language for “extra privileges granted to those who are not white or male”. New England has its own issues with contracts reserved for WMBE (Women or Minority-owned Enterprise) for construction and so on. Whites and males need not apply.
Generally, if one considers world history or contemplate contemporary society, it is Left-Wing people and communities of interest that have a predisposition to employing violence – physical violence, psychological violence or both. Of course, Right-Wing groups and individuals also display violence, but not to the extent and frequency of Left-Wing activists.
DEI is a form of legitimised bureaucratic violence with two objectives:
To employ racism against White people generally, and towards White men in particular;To capture institutions by controlling the agenda and related processes and using institutional violence (e.g. cancelling heterodox individuals from employment, regardless of the consequences to them and their families) against those who fail to conform, and by destroying free speech, directly and indirectly, in order to stifle and eliminate dissent.
As the article admits, even if the UC has officially banned DEI from its recruitment processes, the administration under its super-Woke female CEO may still applaud individual departments from employing DEI practices in their daily business.
The social cancer is so deeply embedded in every nook and cranny of our existence that it will be impossible to root it out altogether, however desirable that might be. Cultural Marxism has triumphed in its long march through the institutions and its leaders, supported by a huge army of lesser, mindless adherents who’ve been brainwashed through relentless propaganda and fear of retribution, remain active and committed to the destruction of the existing order, which they have largely achieved.