As a liberal, gay psychological researcher, my perspective on the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion policies has undergone a philosophical transformation since I began studying it intensely in 2018. Before working in higher education, I supported DEI largely out of ideological obligation as a liberal, without fully grasping its mechanisms or consequences.
Years of extensive research and personal experience have dismantled my earlier perspective, leading me to an unmercifully reversed conclusion. With a sobering relief of sharpened insight, I report that both institutions where I work — the University of Michigan and Northwestern University — have conceded to the pressures of the Trump administration and begun scaling back their DEI initiatives.
I share this evolution not as a provocation but as an invitation to finally celebrate critical discourse. So, today, I say: The time for virtue signaling is over — can we finally return to meaningful research?
The loudest voices in academia, like those in the recent open letter from 922 NU alumni and Weinberg Prof. Laura Beth Nielsen’s op-ed, are in full-blown panic mode. Respectfully, I can’t help but feel that these well-meaning advocates have truly suffered the weight of their own convictions. Nielsen claims that the rollback of DEI is an “authoritarian attack on democracy” and that resisting it is a righteous obligation.
But here’s the truth they refuse to acknowledge: DEI did not foster equality or intellectual freedom. It strangled it. It forced universities into inflexible ideological conformity that punished dissent, prioritized politics over academic excellence, and actively harmed the groups it claimed to uplift. The fact that some faculty members are quietly celebrating its abolishment is not a sign of cowardice — it is a sign that we can finally return to real academic work instead of policing political dogma.
Take the claim that rolling back DEI is an attack on democracy. This argument is illogical on its face. DEI programs did not create more free speech or intellectual diversity on campus. They enforced a narrow ideological structure that punished any deviation from progressive doctrine.
Just ask Prof. Dorian Abbot from the University of Chicago, whose views on merit-based admissions led to the cancellation of his Massachusetts Institute of Technology lecture. Or consider the case of Dr. Joshua Katz at Princeton, who criticized DEI programs and found himself targeted in a public smear campaign that conveniently resulted in his dismissal over unrelated allegations. Similarly, the case of Stephen Kleinschmit, a former clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, who was fired in 2023 for objecting to the university’s race-based hiring policies, particularly the “Bridge to Faculty” program.
When academia operates more like an ideological purity test than a space for debate, democracy is not thriving — it is suffocating.
The authors of these pro-DEI arguments also conveniently ignore how these initiatives fueled bureaucracy at the expense of real academic work. Between 2015 and 2022, universities nationwide poured millions into bloated DEI departments while slashing funding for actual research.
The University of Michigan employs over 100 DEI administrators, outnumbering the history faculty. What do these administrators do? They don’t teach. They don’t conduct research. They don’t advance scholarship. They enforce ideological compliance, ensuring that every department, every syllabus and every hiring decision adheres to a prescribed worldview. If that isn’t political interference, what is?
The irony is palpable when Nielsen and the 922 alumni claim that eliminating DEI will result in a loss of academic freedom. In reality, the end of DEI means faculty members can finally speak their minds without fear of retribution. Research grants can be awarded based on merit instead of ideological litmus tests. It means we can have honest discussions about race, gender and identity — discussions that don’t start from the assumption that dissenting opinions are dangerous.
If anything, DEI was the real authoritarian threat. It created an academic culture where faculty and students were pressured to self-censor, political agendas dictated hiring and admissions and the pursuit of knowledge was secondary to ideological compliance.
This is not about Trump, nor about “authoritarian control.” This concerns whether universities exist to produce demanding scholarships or to serve as indoctrination centers. The people lamenting the rollback of DEI are revealing their true priorities: They care more about enforcing their political beliefs than ensuring universities remain spaces of intensive study. They are more invested in controlling narratives than in producing results. And that, frankly, is unethical.
Universities are meant to be places where ideas compete on their merit. For too long, DEI ensured that only one perspective was allowed to win before the debate even started. With its grip loosening, we can finally return to real academic work.
Those who are quietly celebrating should not have to whisper their relief. They should be able to proudly and publicly say that it is time to move forward — not backward, not toward authoritarianism, but toward an academic culture that values truth over politics, research over rhetoric and excellence over ideological conformity.
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.
