Editor’s Note: The research methodology Kevin Waldman used for his findings involved direct, one-on-one conversations with students who volunteered across campus. Participants completed a survey about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, then watched a video of a sermon by Bishop Marianne Budde delivered during President Donald Trump’s inauguration. Then, Waldman followed up with an open-ended discussion with participants. The Daily did not participate in this research, and Waldman’s conclusions are his own.
Following President Donald Trump’s recent decision to dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives in government offices nationwide, a unique opportunity has arisen to explore how this decision resonates in the context of higher education.
To investigate this issue further, I used Bishop Marianne Budde’s widely discussed inaugural sermon as a focal point, asking 100 liberal-identifying students at Northwestern to watch her video and share their thoughts on its connection to DEI practices on campus.
Budde’s sermon, delivered during President Trump’s inaugural event, focused on immigration and the rights of transgender youth. Budde framed these issues as central moral imperatives, calling for compassion and systemic change to protect vulnerable populations.
Her impassioned prose emphasized the need for inclusivity and justice, but sparked controversy for its overt political messaging and perceived divisiveness.
The results of my survey are both revealing and unsettling.
Of the 100 students surveyed, 91 expressed that Budde’s sermon was deceptively antagonistic, indicating that her elocution amplified tensions rather than inspiring unity. Interestingly, all 100 students identified as liberal, yet 43 of them disclosed that they had voted for Trump in November’s election — a striking figure that contradicts the mainstream narrative about political ideologies on prestigious college campuses. Furthermore, 37 of these 43 students feared their grades would suffer if their professors discovered their voting choice.
Budde’s sermon is a quintessential example of how DEI initiatives manifest on campus. While she has touted her message on multiple television networks as a unifying call for inclusivity, students have begun to see through the facade, interpreting her words as a thinly veiled appeal to political division.
This dynamic mirrors the broader reality of DEI programs on campus, which are routinely championed as instruments of diversity and equity but are increasingly experienced as mechanisms of ideological imposition. For many, what is marketed as a noble pursuit of unity and inclusion has revealed itself to be a calculated strategy of division cloaked in the rhetoric of progress.
Student feedback reveals a troubling and increasingly common sentiment: Many students, including those who identify as liberal but remain skeptical of DEI, fear that speaking out against the prevailing ideological framework could jeopardize their academic futures.
They worry that challenging DEI’s principles or practices might lead to lower grades or hinder their educational and professional opportunities, effectively stifling open discourse. This growing culture of realization has left students feeling disillusioned, frustrated by what they’re reporting as a growing awareness that career preparation is no longer the primary focus of the college curriculum. In response, I asked the 100 surveyed students to articulate what they believe is the valuable message of DEI as reflected in their college curricula.
Several students reported that they view DEI as a reminder that they should see themselves as oppressors or oppressed rather than as individuals capable of success through their achievements. They described feeling guilt for their accomplishments and sensed that the framework of DEI diminished their efforts by framing success as inherently tied to privilege.
Some even speculated that their professors might perpetuate this narrative as part of a broader masquerade to maintain authority and control.
Budde’s sermon became a perfect parallel for this dynamic. Much like the DEI framework, her message was perceived as a performance feigning a call for unity, while in reality, it deepened divisions.
These students directly compared the sermon and their experiences on campus, describing how DEI initiatives compel them to adopt positions they do not genuinely hold to avoid social or academic repercussions. Interestingly, some students reported that they are starting to see past the leftist political agenda embedded in such messaging.
They noted that these initiatives — and sermons like Budde’s — are designed to divide students categorically rather than unite them. The question is: Why? Nobody seems to know.
The survey results reveal a significant disconnect between the prevailing narrative in media and academia and the reality of student perspectives. While the majority of students self-identify as liberal both politically and ideologically, they are increasingly critical of the extreme leftist messaging they perceive in academic curricula.
This agenda, self-reported by NU undergrads, frames America and white heterosexual individuals as inherently problematic and asserts that they owe reparations or recognition to those who do not identify as such, which is drawing growing resistance.
These students are not opposed to the concepts of diversity or equity in principle; instead, they reject the divisive and coercive manner in which these ideals are enforced on campus. Despite aligning with liberal values, many are becoming disillusioned with how these principles are being used to push a specific ideological agenda.
As universities across the nation wrestle with the implications of Trump’s decision to dismantle DEI in government offices, it has never been more essential to reexamine the role of such initiatives in higher education. Are they genuinely cultivating an inclusive and equitable environment or imposing a singular worldview that stifles genuine diversity of thought?
The voices of some NU students suggest the latter, and their experiences should prompt a serious reconsideration of the purpose and impact of DEI on college campuses.
Kevin Waldman is a student at The Graduate School. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
