Diversity Statements Violate Institutional Neutrality!

A year ago, only three U.S. colleges and universities were officially committed to institutional neutrality:

Institutional Neutrality is the idea that colleges and universities should not, as institutions, take positions on social and political issues unless those issues “threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” Instead, these discussions should be left to students and faculty. 

Since then, the number of such schools has multiplied by more than a factor of 7. (My own George Mason University isn’t one of them, though by my count the number of official emails on current events has dropped to zero). And what the list lacks in quantity, it makes up for in prestige:

1. Claremont McKenna College: December 6, 2018

2. Vanderbilt University: February, 2021

3. University of North Carolina System: July 14, 2023

4. Utah State University: December, 2023

5. University of Wyoming: December 5, 2023

6. College of the Holy Cross: February 6, 2024

7. Syracuse University: May 7, 2024

8. Harvard University: May 28, 2024

9. Stanford University: May 30, 2024

10. Purdue University: June 3, 2024

11. Clark University: June 10, 2024

12. Johns Hopkins University: August 15, 2024

13. University of Southern California: August 20, 2024

14. University of Texas System: August 22, 2024

15. Emerson College: August 23, 2024

16. University of Colorado Boulder: August 28, 2024

17. University of Alabama System: September 5, 2024

18. Washington State University: September 9, 2024

19. University of Pennsylvania: September 10, 2024

20. University of Wisconsin System: September 13, 2024

21. University of Virginia: September 13, 2024

22. Northwestern University: September 27, 2024

Some of these schools, most notably Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, have recently eliminated mandatory Diversity Statements, too. (Though this is still up on the Harvard website).

Yet as far as I know, no school has, after vowing Institutional Neutrality, said, “Pursuant to our vow, we no longer require Diversity Statements.” And as a matter of consistency, they all should.

How so? DEI is a novel society-wide movement. Support for DEI correlates almost perfectly with leftist ideology. To require Diversity Statements, then, amounts to declaring, “We refuse to hire anyone who rejects a recent innovation in leftist thought.” Which makes such statements notably more restrictive than a blanket policy of “non-leftists need not apply.”

What about the “unless those issues ‘threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry’” exception? Universities existed for centuries without DEI. So unless you think that universities failed to pursue their missions or uphold the values of free inquiry until the 21st century, the exception does not apply. Indeed, given DEI’s notorious hostility to free inquiry, an anti-DEI exception would make far more sense than the status quo.

I understand people who hold controversial worldviews. I am one such person. When DEI proponents treat their controversial worldview as accepted fact, I’m tempted to scoff at their sheer obliviousness. But in reality, their obliviousness is strategic. When they preach their secular religion as established fact, I can’t help but feel like they’re trying to intimidate us into pretending to agree with them.

Any institution that takes Institutional Neutrality seriously will stand up to this ongoing, on-campus intimidation: “DEI is a controversial social and political issue, therefore our university does not take a side. And refusing to consider job applicants who question DEI is an extreme form of taking a side.”