DEI Proponents at the University of Michigan Are Panicking but Refusing to Budge

Over the past year, Americans have increasingly turned against DEI. The tipping point came when DEI proved to enable antisemitism on university campuses. This unleashed a wave of pent-up frustration over DEI’s enforcement of progressive conformity, prioritization of race over merit, culture of speech policing, and waste of resources on a giant, ideological bureaucracy.

In the face of this backlash, DEI stalwarts at the University of Michigan are not seeking to adapt their policies. Instead, they’re digging in and defending the full implementation of their ideology into every aspect of the university.

Even following the publication of a 10,000-word investigative article from the New York Times on the failure of DEI at the University of Michigan, the university’s chief diversity officer, Tabbye Chavous, doubled down in a presentation on Michigan’s “DEI 2.0” policies last month. She said, “The goal of our efforts is for diversity, equity, and inclusion to permeate all that we do on campus.”

Her deputy chief diversity officer, Katrina Wade-Golden, likewise reiterated her full-throated commitment to the cause. “At a time when some question the value of DEI, our impact speaks louder than any criticism,” Wade-Golden said. “Together, we can create an environment where diversity, equity, and inclusion are more than just aspirations. They are the very fabric of our everyday experiences.”

Chavous responded to the New York Times report in a manner that was perhaps predictable for a diversity officer. In a blustery op-ed, she claimed that the article exhibited sexism toward her. “[T]he article,” she wrote, “was rife with sexist tropes, which many in our community noted and found offensive and antithetical to the values of DEI.”

Chavous found sexism in the fact that the New York Times article, which was authored by Nicholas Confessore, referred to her “marital status.” The Times article had noted that Chavous succeeded her husband, Robert Sellers, in Michigan’s chief diversity officer role. Chavous additionally claimed that “gendered language” had been used to describe her “interactions and mannerisms.” It appears that this refers to when Confessore said Chavous “sounded flustered” when asked about the growing backlash to DEI. (Chavous had responded that “[n]o one at Michigan” had raised any concerns with her.)

But even as DEI proponents at the University of Michigan hold fully to their ideology and refuse to entertain the possibility of change, they are increasingly fearful.

Their anxiety escalated on Wednesday when the University of Michigan’s faculty senate chair, Rebekah Modrak, penned a letter to faculty senate members warning that the university’s regents had met to discuss “possibly defunding DEI.” Modrak fretted that the regents “held this discussion without the Chief Diversity Officer.” She asserted that regents have “charged the President … to come up with a plan to defund or ‘restructure’ ODEI,” and that the regents “may announce or vote to implement the plan” as early as Dec. 5.

Modrak urged faculty members to act, calling on them to speak during the public comments section of the next regents meeting, attend one of two faculty “Grassroots Meetings,” rally on the university’s Diag (an open space on campus) in support of DEI, and show up “en masse” at the regents meeting. “Diversity, equity, and inclusivity are imperative to address systemic and structural inequities,” said Modrak. “They are also stated core values of the University of Michigan.”

Modrak expressed concern that several members of the Board of Regents had engaged with Confessore, the New York Times journalist, and spoken poorly of the university’s DEI apparatus. “We know that at least a few Regents actively engaged the NY Times journalist,” she said, “offering perspectives, information and contacts in ways that helped set up the article’s biased framework and conclusions.”

Several of the University of Michigan’s regents have indeed criticized DEI. Regent Sarah Hubbard has vocally denounced several DEI practices, including the use of diversity statements in hiring. In addition, Regent Jordan B. Acker, a Democrat who has been subject to a harassment campaign by antisemitic protesters because he is Jewish, has blamed DEI for the flurry of antisemitic activity on university campuses. “I think that part of the reason why universities are having this issue [of antisemitism] is because, over the last decade, a lot of these schools have used DEI,” he told Fox News this summer.

It remains unclear if the University of Michigan Board of Regents really is seeking to defund the university’s DEI programs, as members of the board have not responded to requests for comment. But, with how embarrassing the $250 million the university has poured onto DEI is now looking, particularly because of the New York Times article, it makes sense that the regents would pursue such a change.

For the sake of keeping their jobs, members of Michigan’s DEI apparatus would do well to quickly refocus their efforts on helping low-income students and promoting intellectual diversity, rather than on injecting race obsession into every aspect of the university. But their total commitment to DEI dogma is stopping them from even slightly adapting. For that reason, they should be panicking.

The post DEI Proponents at the University of Michigan Are Panicking but Refusing to Budge appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.