The DEI Rollback of 2023


States start to limit programs that sow racial and political division.

The Wall Street Journal

Editorial Board

December 26, 2023 


The diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) bureaucracy on campus has proliferated in recent years, but there are signs it’s finally meeting resistance. The latest good news is from Wisconsin, where public universities will pare back some DEI programs and freeze them going forward.


Under a deal shaped by Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, the state approved $800 million in pay raises for university staff and for plans to build a new engineering building at the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison. In exchange, the university will freeze all DEI hiring, eliminate a third of DEI positions on campus, and create an endowed chair to teach “conservative political thought, classical economic theory or classical liberalism” at UW Madison. At least now there will be one conservative.


That’s a step forward at a school that has as many DEI staffers as history professors, according to Jay Greene at the Heritage Foundation. The DEI infrastructure is entrenched, but after an initial negative vote and negotiations, the UW Board of Regents approved the deal 11-6.


Democratic Gov. Tony Evers called the deal “obnoxious” and “B.S.,” according to WISN-TV. But lawmakers have an obligation to taxpayers not to fund policies that practice racial favoritism or promote hostility to equal opportunity.


Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt recently signed an executive order to stop funding many of the DEI programs in that state’s government. The order instructs universities to “review” DEI positions and programs and “restructure” or “eliminate” those not necessary for compliance or accreditation. The order specifies that executive state agencies cannot use state “funds, property or resources” for programs that “grant preferential treatment based on one person’s particular race.”


The order also prohibits the use of state money for DEI mandates or loyalty oaths that discriminate on the basis of racial identity or ideological viewpoint. Those litmus tests have been used to toxic effect in hiring at universities as well as state agencies. But the order protects “the academic freedom of any particular faculty member to direct the instruction within his or her own course.” So no censorship complaints, please.


The ideology of DEI was sold in the name of opportunity for all, but in practice it has become a cudgel for political conformity and racial grievance. It feeds the progressive narrative on campus that America is a land of oppressor and oppressed, as the explosion of antisemitism on campus has illustrated. Let’s hope more state legislatures follow the lead of Wisconsin and Oklahoma.



The DEI Rollback of 2023 - WSJ

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.



15 May, 2024
Annie Hirshman '24 May 15, 2024 Last year, I took a Political Science course with a certain professor. This was not uncommon for me, as I am a Political Science major. However, for students of different majors, this particular course was required in order to obtain a liberal arts degree from Davidson College. Therefore, this class serves as a lot of students' sole exposure to the political science department. I was in the classroom with a variety of individuals, ranging from the Phi Delt jocks to the studio art majors. This classroom had everything and everyone. Since this was the first time a lot of them had taken a political science course, the dialogue and discourse was somewhat quieter. Therefore, I felt encouraged to speak up in class. I participated often, sharing my opinion on daily issues and historical events that had shaped American politics. I hoped that my voice would encourage others to participate. Sharing my opinion took a turn for the worse on a certain Wednesday morning. As the semester progressed, I noticed that the teacher was only sharing liberal skewed media sources. When they would discuss conservative matters, it had a negative connotation. They often referred to Republican politicians as a whole using derogatory terms, almost asserting that one bad apple was synonymous with the bunch. I discussed what occurred within the classroom numerous times outside, especially with my classmates that were rather conservative. They spoke of how they felt alienated in class, frightened at the outcome if they were to share their opinion. As a natural-born extrovert and rather excited by the idea of questioning the professor, I spoke up. I asked them why they chose to share only liberal-based news sources and strayed from conservative outlets in their journalistic sources. Their answer was short and sweet: because they were the only accurate sources to garner information from. I was shocked and severely taken aback by their statement. Later that day, the professor followed up with an email ‘defending’ their position. Without their intent, they confirmed that they do not “explicitly seek to include conservative outlets”. They spoke of how there was an ongoing movement to tar outlets that were not relatively conservative. They continued that accurate news sources were under attack for liberal alignment when in reality (their opinion), they were honest and true. The professor asserted that Republican politicians were guilty of executive aggrandizement for these efforts. In addition, they asserted that sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shown to have a very limited liberal bias, if any. As someone who seeks to challenge my own and other’s beliefs, I did some research to see if these statements were accurate or not. I checked multiple sources to see which sources were actually ideologically skewed. The Allsides Media Bias Chart, which collects its information based upon multi-partisan scientific analysis, including expert panels and surveys of thousands of everyday Americans, provided convincing material. It asserted that the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post all skew left to the same extent that The Wall Street Journal skewed right. In addition, I analyzed the Ad Fontes Chart. In order to analyze their data and rate their sources, their methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist analysts. All analysts must hold a bachelor’s degree, while most hold a graduate degree and about one-third have obtained a doctoral degree. It argues that the Wall Street Journal is on the “skews right” section while the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN are on the “skews left” section. The fact that Davidson supports a professor that only teaches one side is sad but not shocking. This is an ongoing issue at this college. I know for a fact that I am not the sole student who feels this way. Teachers are supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think. Through supporting professors that promote a one-sided discourse, that statement is contradicted daily. Considering that the college routinely refers to the “Davidson Experience” in a positive way, I can’t believe that this is what they have in mind. At the end of the day, solely teaching one side is indoctrination. Davidson, coming from a student who admires and cherishes you, please do better so future generations of students feel both free and encouraged to speak their mind, even if it is different than the majority. Annie Hirshman is a 2024 Graduate of Davidson College with a degree in Political Science.
07 May, 2024
Students demanded that we side against Israel, violating the core principle of institutional neutrality.
03 May, 2024
Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.
Show More
Share by: