The University of Michigan ends diversity policy by eliminating diversity statements in faculty hiring, citing concerns over free expression and diversity of thought.
Decision to Drop Diversity Statements Follows Faculty Recommendations
The University of Michigan has announced it will no longer require diversity statements for faculty hiring, promotion, or tenure evaluations. This decision follows recommendations by an eight-member faculty working group tasked with assessing the statements’ effectiveness and implications.
Provost Laurie McCauley shared the announcement, emphasizing the university’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) while addressing concerns about freedom of expression. “Our collective efforts in this area have produced important strides in opening opportunities for all people,” McCauley stated, adding that the university is refining its approaches to uphold these values.
The working group was formed in June, reviewing policies at peer institutions and gathering feedback through a faculty survey, which drew nearly 2,000 responses. The group’s findings highlighted growing concerns that diversity statements could limit diversity of thought and force faculty to align with specific ideological positions.
Faculty Divided Over Diversity Statements’ Impact
Survey results revealed mixed opinions among faculty. Many respondents viewed diversity statements as a potential “litmus test” for political acceptability, with critics arguing that these documents constrain freedom of expression and hinder true intellectual diversity. Others, however, noted that well-crafted diversity statements could demonstrate a faculty member’s contributions to fostering DEI initiatives.
The working group’s report concluded that diversity statements, as currently used, could inadvertently stifle diverse viewpoints. “Critics perceive them as expressions of personal identity traits or ideological stances, which could marginalize dissenting perspectives,” the report noted.
While some faculty supported the idea of incorporating DEI values into broader teaching, research, and service statements, this recommendation was not implemented. Instead, the Provost’s Office plans to collaborate with campus leaders to explore alternative ways of fostering inclusivity.
University’s Approach Reflects Decentralized Policy
Previously, the university did not have a unified policy requiring diversity statements, leaving individual units to decide whether to include them in hiring and promotion processes. This decentralized approach reflected Michigan’s commitment to maintaining diverse academic practices across its various schools and departments.
The decision to discontinue the statements marks a significant shift as institutions nationwide grapple with balancing DEI initiatives with concerns about academic freedom. The university intends to continue refining its efforts to foster inclusivity while preserving freedom of thought.
Public Comments Reveal Deep Divisions Over Diversity Statement Policy
The University of Michigan’s decision to end diversity statements in faculty hiring has sparked a heated debate among faculty and the public. Online comments highlight a range of opinions, from support for academic freedom to accusations of political interference by the university’s regents.
Support for Academic Freedom and Criticism of DEI Overreach
Sean J., a commenter, sharply criticized the decision, calling it “a cowardly, shameful, and heavy-handed intrusion” into department hiring practices. Johnson argued that diversity statements are not ideological litmus tests but tools to articulate contributions to core university values. He rejected the notion that conservatives cannot produce effective DEI statements as “intellectual laziness.”
Rajeev B., a faculty member, welcomed the announcement, describing diversity statements as “DEI overreach” that exceeds their intended purpose. He called for the university to eliminate similar requirements in graduate program admissions, such as mandatory DEI statements for Ph.D. applicants and restrictions on GRE score consideration.
Concerns Over Regents’ Influence and Incomplete Implementation
Other commenters expressed skepticism about the university’s motives. Mariel K. questioned why the administration chose to implement only one of the working group’s recommendations, calling it a “disingenuous” approach. “This move appears in itself political,” Krupansky said, linking the decision to broader conservative efforts to reduce DEI initiatives nationwide.
Rebekah M. echoed these concerns, noting that the Regents initially called for the outright ban of diversity statements, influencing the university’s actions. Modrak stated, “Sending a committee back to work to give a second report with preordained results is neither honest nor respectful of faculty expertise.”
Christopher G. defended the Regents, emphasizing their role as representatives of Michigan’s voters. “The Regents represent all of us,” Godwin wrote, suggesting that the decision reflects a broader, controversial public debate on DEI policies.
Calls for Better Training and Alternative Approaches
Several commenters suggested alternative paths to improving DEI practices. Levi K. argued that removing diversity statements without offering meaningful training undermines efforts to foster inclusion. He stated, “Serious continued training historically works best, lip service won’t cut it.”
Eliza H. criticized the administration for cherry-picking recommendations, pointing out that the working group’s proposals were intended to be implemented together. Hughes asserted that partial implementation could signal a lack of commitment to substantive DEI changes.
Kirsten H., a longtime member of the UM community, expressed cynicism about the process. “The University Record has always been a mouthpiece for the administration,” Herold wrote while appreciating that public comments are allowed, fostering some level of accountability.
Broader Context: National Debate on DEI Policies
The move comes amid broader national debates on the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in higher education. Universities across the country face scrutiny from policymakers, faculty, and students regarding how these initiatives align with academic freedom and institutional values.
While some institutions maintain the use of diversity statements, others have taken steps to limit or eliminate them, citing concerns similar to those raised at Michigan. This debate underscores the challenge of crafting policies that promote inclusivity without compromising individual expression or intellectual freedom.
Find More Interesting Feature Stories From ThumbWind
- Michigan Features – Unveiling the people, places, and events that make the Great Lake State unique, we’ll explore hidden gems and must-do activities.
- Weird Political News – A sarcastic and insightful take on official news released by government sources, Political Action Committees, and Public Officials from all over the US.
- Michigan News – News and events of Michigan’s Upper Thumb that are worth knowing in the region.
Your Turn – Like This, or Hate it – We Want To Hear From You
Please offer an insightful and thoughtful comment. Idiotic, profane, or threatening comments are removed. Consider sharing this story. Follow us to have other feature stories fill up your Newsbreak feed from ThumbWind Publications.
