Professors continue push for ‘Merit, Fairness and Equality’ to combat DEI regime


By Jacob Shields - University of Maryland

The College Fix

Aug 12, 2022


Professors aimed to ‘come up with something positive as a goal … rather than to just criticize’


Six professors continue to promote an alternative system to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, called Merit, Fairness and Equality. “In order to protect the integrity of universities it is necessary to offer an alternative to the DEI agenda,” professors Dorian Abbot (pictured), Iván Marinovic, Richard Lowery and Carlos Carvalho wrote in an August 5 post on their Substack blog Heterodox STEM.


The blog post notes that two additional authors contributed to the post, but couldn’t reveal their identities “due to potential retaliation.” Abbot is a geophysicist at the University of Chicago, Marinovic is an accounting professor at Stanford, and Lowery and Carvalho are business professors at the University of Texas at Austin. Abbot and Marinovic created the MFE alternative framework together in October 2021, shortly following a canceled speech to be given by Abbot at MIT. Activists had criticized his past comments on diversity initiatives.


“In MFE all academic decisions are based on academic merit, with no other considerations taken into account,” which “promotes the mission of universities: the production of knowledge,” the authors wrote.


The authors argued that their proposal would promote free speech and viewpoint diversity, writing that “ideas generated need to be judged by the academic community based on their merits, not whether some authority deems them to be ‘disinformation’ or even dangerous.”


“The idea was to try to come up with something positive as a goal that those of us concerned about the academy can work toward,” instead of just criticizing DEI, Abbot told The Fix on August 8.


Later that year, Abbot launched the “Heterodox STEM” Substack, which describes itself as “a forum for open-minded and respectful conversations about issues relevant to the STEM community.” It is now part of one of the communities associated with the Heterodox Academy, an organization dedicated to increasing viewpoint diversity and freedom of thought within universities.


However, educational institutions do not seem primed to make the switch. Richard Lowery told The College Fix via email August 11 that he “can’t comment on whether anyone has expressed interest.”


“Certainly there is zero interest in anything relating to merit, fairness, or equality at UT-Austin, and every single administrator and the vast majority of the faculty are hell-bent on going in the opposite direction,” Lowery said.


Although this new framework has received some traction online, “no one has officially adopted MFE yet,” Abbot told The Fix in an August 11 email. “Many people are concerned about potential biases in evaluations. MFE gives a productive framework to try to deal with those biases that is not fundamentally antagonistic to the pursuit of truth,” Abbot wrote in his email.


“The key point … is that the metric for success is always academic excellence, and the resulting distribution of immutable characteristics among those selected is never taken into account,” the academics wrote in the blog post.


DEI is a ‘utopian ideology,’ authors state. The August 6 post criticized DEI, calling it a “utopian ideology” that violates “the moral principles of treating all human beings equally and not using them as mere instruments to achieve socio-political ends.”


Merit, Fairness and Equality is a more “morally justified approach” than DEI, the authors argue, saying that, “in deference to their individual dignity, each person is treated equally and given an equal shot.”


The professors encouraged widespread adoption of their new framework, writing, “the MFE concept does not belong to us, and we hope that others will adopt it as their own and build on it.”



Professors continue push for ‘Merit, Fairness and Equality’ to combat DEI regime | The College Fix




December 11, 2025
Student evaluations subject professors to perverse incentives.
December 10, 2025
Written by John Craig December 10, 2025 On October 27, the Manhattan Institution’s City Journal published a major, breakthrough analysis of the performance of 100 prominent US (and one Canadian) universities and colleges, “Introducing the City Journal College Rankings,” For the first time, this new performance system includes data on measures (68 in all) like freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity tolerance, quality of instruction, investment payoff, and campus politicization that are not considered in the other major higher ed ranking systems. How did Davidson measure up in City Journal’s performance assessment? On a scale of one (bottom) to five (top) stars , Davidson is among the 63 schools that received 2 stars. Schools that, according to City Journal, have “Mostly average to below-average scores in all categories with no particularly noteworthy strengths. Significant, focused policy changes are needed at these schools.” (Full rankings available here College Rankings | Rankings ) To summarize the methodology, the City Journal team selected 100 schools that are highly touted by other ranking systems, widely known to the American public, and/or of high regional importance. The researchers gathered data on 68 variables across 21 categories covering four major aspects of on- and off-campus life. The Educational Experience categories were Faculty Ideological Pluralism, Faculty Teaching Quality, Faculty Research Quality, Faculty Speech Climate, Curricular Rigor, and Heterodox Infrastructure; the Leadership Quality categories were Commitment to Meritocracy, Support for Free Speech, and Resistance to Politicization; the Outcomes categories were Quality of Alumni Network, Value Added to Career, and Value Added to Education; and the Student Experience categories were Student Ideological Pluralism, Student Free Speech, Student Political Tolerance, Student Social Life, Student Classroom Experience, Campus ROTC, Student Community Life, and Jewish Campus Climate. No other higher ed ranking system includes as many variables. (Read more about methodology at College Rankings | Methods ) The data included publicly available information from sources such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the Department of Education’s College Scorecard, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s College Free Speech Rankings. The researchers also developed original measures for the project, such as the ideological balance of student political organizations and the partisan makeup of faculty campaign contributions. Each variable was coded so that higher values mean better performance and was weighted to reflect relative importance. For example, student ideological pluralism (as measured by self-reported student ideology and the left-right balance of student organizations) accounts for 5 percent of a school’s score while City Journal’s estimate of how many years it will take the typical student to recoup their educational investment to attend a given college accounts for 12.5 percent. A school’s overall score is the sum of points across the 21 categories, with the top possible score being 100. While the assessment system is for the most part hard-data-based, it has, like other ranking systems, subjective elements—like the weighing system. So methodological challenges will come and will doubtlessly lead to improvements the next time around. That said, the methodology strikes me as defensible and a marked improvement over that of other popular rating systems. I will conclude with some comments on the findings. Note that the Average score (out of 100) for the 100 institutions is 46 and the median score is 45.73—so overall, this is not a “high performance” group of institutions. No institution receives a 5-Star rating, and only two receive a 4-Star rating (University of Florida and University of Texas at Austin). Only 11 schools receive a 3-Star rating—Having “Mixed results across the four categories, showing strengths in some and weakness in others. These schools typically have several clear paths to improvement.” Because assessment scores are generally low and tightly clustered in the middle, the rankings by score are misleading: Davidson, at 51.16 with a rank of 25, looks to be in the top quartile (between Princeton and Georgetown), but in fact gets just a 2-Star assessment
November 11, 2025
Report from Ivy League school finds rampant grade inflation, but students complain administration is moving goal posts
Show More