Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog

There are conflicting reports on whether Texas A&M, as ordered by Governor Greg Abbott, are actually ending their raidcal leftwing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI, AKA critical race theory, AKA social justice), or just pretending.

Officially, Texas A&M has ended DEI.

The Texas A&M University System has moved to remove all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statements from their employment and admissions practices, it said in a statement on its website.

Chancellor John Sharp stated that after receiving a letter in February from Gov. Greg Abbott’s office, he ordered a review of all DEI policies in the university system.

“No university or agency in the A&M System will admit any student, nor hire any employee based on any factor other than merit,” said Sharp.

A directive was sent to all university system agencies to limit employment and admissions to a cover letter, curriculum vitae, statements about research and teaching philosophies, and professional references.

A memo obtained from Abbott’s office asserted that DEI policy “has been manipulated to push policies that expressly favor some demographic groups to the detriment of others.”

The University of Texas (UT) System board chairman Kevin Eltife announced a pause on all DEI efforts during a board of regents meeting last week. The move was prompted by his comments about how “certain DEI efforts have strayed from the original intent.”

Is there a reason to doubt the sincerity of this effort? Well, John Sharp is a Democrat, albeit one from an era (he was State Comptroller from 1991 through 1999) where there was still a conservative (or at least moderate) wing to the Texas Democratic Party.

Second, over at Texas Scorecard, Scott Yenor is skeptical of A&M’s sincerity.

“How Texas A&M Went Woke,” my report from the Claremont Institute, has prompted the Texas A&M administration to respond. First, A&M has reportedly hired someone to continue the process of scrubbing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies from its website. Second, A&M is circulating a memo charging that “misinformation” lies at “the foundation of the report.” A&M compares more than a dozen “Statements from Yenor” against “Facts from Texas A&M University.” But their “facts” are simply the evasions and obfuscations of a guilty party. Their rebuttal presents an object lesson in sophistry.

One category of sophistry is refuting a charge not made. I contend that that A&M “has more DEI administrators than UT-Austin.” A&M responds that a comparison of “executive-level DEI operations” in central administration shows that A&M has fewer. I say A&M has more total DEI administrators; A&M says it has fewer central administrators. Both statements are true. A&M had many more lower-level DEI officials than UT at the time of the counting. I say that A&M created a diversity committee to consider removing statues on campus; A&M responds that no statues have been removed (yet!). Again, both statements are true. A&M has not refuted anything I said.

Sometimes, they claim ignorance; A&M evidently has so many DEI programs that it can hardly keep track of them. One is the LEAD program, which trains department chairs in DEI ideology, among other things. A&M is “not aware of a training for department chairs called LEAD.” A snapshot from ADVANCE, the university’s faculty affairs website, shows that this program still exists under a different name.

Another technique is to deny, deny, deny. A&M administrators describe their own ACES program, which is housed in the Office of Diversity. A&M often lauds ACES as a premier diversity program. It lists ACES in its evaluations of diversity programs. A&M now denies that ACES is “a diversity effort.” Who you gonna believe—A&M or your lying eyes?

Sometimes A&M concedes that their DEI programs exist, but that they have discontinued them or that they will discontinue them.

Snip.

The university has announced in advance how it will get around the A&M system’s recently-announced ban on DEI statements.

The legislature should defund DEI administrative offices in all Texas universities and colleges. All who are currently employed in such offices should be let go. This will make it clear that DEI is bad for one’s career in Texas higher ed. Second, the Texas legislature should adopt the Kalven Report as a vision for university professionalism. Politicized teaching and disciplines should be judged against the standards of the Kalven Report. If disciplines are so thoroughly infused with DEI ideology or any other leftist activism, the legislature should cease to fund them. Disciplines with DEI inscribed into their DNA should not receive public funds.

Most importantly, the Board of Regents must take its job more seriously. It must issue directives to eradicate DEI from universities and then follow through with them by firing university presidents who openly defy the Board or obfuscate their DEI efforts. Personnel is policy. The Left has clamored for DEI practices for generations, and university presidents have responded by permitting the DEI bureaucracy to bloat. It is time for these university presidents to fear conservatives in the legislature more than they do the Left, and this can be done only when select university presidents are fired. If this Board of Regents will not do it, then it too must be released and replaced.

I share Yenor’s skepticism. Those infected with social justice never give up pushing their radical ideology, administration directive or no administration directive. Laying off all DEI personnel is the only way to purge the infection.