NEW: During one hiring cycle at Ohio State, 60% of new arts and humanities faculty jobs fell in the “DEI” category, according to emails I obtained.

This was after OSU announced it would hire “100 underrepresented and BIPOC hires in all fields of scholarship.”

🧵on my latest. In 2021, Ohio State’s then-president Kristina Johnson announced an initiative to hire 50 scholars focused on “social equity” and 100 “underrepresented and BIPOC” hires in all disciplines.

Documents I’ve acquired, reported in @CityJournal, shed light on how that played out.

Last week, the DOJ released guidance for federal funding recipients.

The memo—which clarifies how nondiscrimination law should be applied—is a huge development for universities. A lot of their worst policies are looking more fragile than ever. 🧵 2/ The DOJ specifically highlights the use of racial proxies. Hiring on the basis of "cultural competence" or using diversity statements is unlawful if the purpose is to give an advantage to specific racial groups.

This is an even bigger deal than it might seem.

NEW: George Mason University's largest college required every faculty hiring committee to carefully document how it prioritized diversity.

Through FOIA, I’ve acquired dozens of these reports. The records are eye opening…🧵 For several years, these inclusive search plans were required for hiring in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

One committee openly stated that it discussed “diversity”—which included “demographic diversity”—as a part of candidates' strengths/weaknesses.

NEW: Universities across the U.S. have embraced diversity checkpoints in faculty hiring.

Administrators monitor the demographics of applicants throughout the process, with consequences for searches that don't "pass muster"—according to a trove of records I've obtained.

🧵 In one email—acquired via a records request—UT Austin professor Carma Gorman asked diversity-dean John Yancey whether her search committee’s pool was sufficiently diverse to advance.

The dean said yes, but if the numbers dropped “then things don’t look good anymore.”

DOCUMENTS: At Cornell, search committees that were hiring biomedical scientists had to pass four "checkpoints" to make sure their pools were "sufficiently diverse."

"That certainly looks like a Title VII violation," one legal expert told me when discussing the program.

🧵 In 2021, Cornell received a $16 million NIH grant for the Cornell FIRST hiring program—aiming, in the proposal’s words, to "increase the number of minoritized faculty" at Cornell and beyond.

I acquired a trove of documents that show how this played out.

DOCUMENTS: The University of Michigan’s “anti-racism and racial justice” cluster hire wrapped up last year—recruiting at least 20 new professors.

I’ve acquired the proposals via a record request. They show how U-M aggressively hired social justice activists.

🧵🧵🧵 For a cluster focused on the arts, a proposal declares that the new faculty will teach students to become "change agents," as art should aim to "challenge policies" which "perpetuate white supremacy."

Trust in higher ed has crashed over a decade.

Why?

My take: because in that time, universities launched huge ideologically-charged faculty hiring schemes.

But these schemes are legally vulnerable. They came hand-in-hand with overt discrimination.

🧵
I’ve acquired hundreds of documents describing the inner workings of social justice university hiring schemes.

Just in my capacity as an investigative journalist, I’ve found dozens of examples of universities seemingly violating civil rights law—and hiring based on race.

Today, I argue that the challenge of higher education reform can be boiled down to one issue: the talent pipeline.

If we rewire the academic talent pipeline, the reform movement will succeed. If not, no other list of policies will suffice. 2/ Universities have long provoked criticism. But acute mistrust is a recent trend. Ten years ago, 57% of Americans had high confidence in higher ed, and only 10% had “little or none.” Today, only 36% have high trust, and 32% have low-to-no confidence.

What changed?

Accreditors have played a serious and underrated role in ramrodding ideological and discriminatory policies throughout higher ed.

Some examples 🧵 The problem is perhaps worst in the medical sciences, of all places.

Example 1: In 2020, the Liaison Committee for Medical Education found Oregon Health and Science University’s medial school lacking in the area of "faculty diversity."

Faced with outside pressure, universities continue to circle the wagons in the name of "faculty governance" and autonomy.

But for years, big donors and university administrators have blatantly undercut faculty authority—all to promote sweeping social justice projects.

🧵 Dozens of universities have embraced fellow-to-faculty hiring schemes to promote their social justice goals, as I’ve described before.

Through these programs, an admin-led team hires postdocs who are then given special favor for tenure-track jobs.

As huge NIH funding cuts become a real possibility at places like Harvard, it's worth putting the agency's role in perspective.

Put simply, the NIH is biomedical science in the US. Private money will not be able to pick up its tab.

🧵🧵🧵 2/ This year the NIH requested a fiscal year budget of $50 billion, and in years past its been close to that amount.

The top ten medical schools by NIH funding all get more than half a billion dollars annually.

Let’s put that in perspective…

Princeton President Chris Eisgruber argues: Trump’s demands violate academic freedom, the admin is using science funding to influence policies that have nothing to do with science (e.g. admissions policies).

It's hard to take this completely seriously. Here's why: (🧵) The federal government constantly uses its funding “clout” to elicit university policies. Most recently, this has come in the form of heavy handed diversity requirements, which of course involves admissions policies.

As far as I know, Eisgruber has never raised the issue. 2/

Trump is hurling earth-shaking threats at America’s universities. The response from elite opinion leaders has been fascinating, if you read between the lines.

The pattern is: denounce Trump’s actions, but also, in a way, vindicate them. The New York Times is a good example.

🧵 The NYT editorial board declares: now is the time for universities to defend themselves.

But also, universities have valued ideology over truth-seeking (i.e. their basic mission). They've silenced debate. They've ostracized political outsiders.

LaVelle Ridley, a professor at Ohio State, uses research to push an "anti-capitalist, prison abolitionist agenda."

Ridley’s career is worth examining. It illustrates how much cash goes toward scholar-activism—especially cash from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

🧵🧵🧵 As an undergrad, Ridley was a Schomburg-Mellon Humanities Fellow, a diversity-focused research and mentoring program with a decent stipend.

Run through the New York Public Library. Funded by the Mellon Foundation.

NEW: A scholar pushing a "prison abolitionist agenda." A "neuroqueercrip" student studying decolonization. A working group on "tribal critical race theory."

Each is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation—a driving force behind the scholar-activist pipeline.

🧵🧵🧵


2/ Andrew Mellon made his mark on American politics a century ago as Treasury secretary.

In my latest, I describe how today his foundation injects identity politics into our universities and—most notably—bankrolls the career development of activist scholars.

For a few years I’ve reported on how universities use DEI statements to screen faculty hires—a huge issue for academic freedom.

It’s safe to say: we won the debate. In two years, opinion has shifted dramatically. This month, the UC System nixed the practice.

🧵🧵🧵 For me, covering the policy underscored what you can accomplish through solid reporting.

Again and again, when I managed to show what the policy looked like in practice—what happened behind the scenes—it moved the needle.

I'm putting some key examples in this 🧵of 🧵s.

Notable reporting from Emily Kopp. A study purported to show that mortality is higher for black infants seen by white doctors. By now, the issues with this study are widely known.

FOIAed notes show how the authors in fact cut points that they said "undermined the narrative."
As I told @emilyakopp, the study illustrates a vicious cycle. Health equity research justifies DEI policies, which elicit more health equity research. Eventually, a bunk study might end up cited in a dissenting opinion for the country's highest court.

HUGE NEWS: The University of California Board of Regents just ended the use diversity statements in faculty hiring throughout the system.

“To be clear, stand-alone diversity statements will no longer be permitted in recruitments,” the system’s provost said in a letter today.
This is truly earth-shattering. The UC system is where this (now hugely controversial) policy got started.

It pioneered the practice of assessing diversity statement before a scholars dossier.

Colleges around the country have copied its evaluation rubric verbatim (see ⬇️⬇️⬇️).

How do college administrators bypass DEI bans? A trove of behind-the-scenes records give us a candid look 🧵 1/ In 2022, the National Science Foundation—the U.S. federal agency tasked with funding scientific research—gave $10 million for a fellow-to-faculty diversity hiring scheme at universities in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina.

Its goal: the hiring of “minoritized postdoctoral scholars into tenure-track positions.”

But there’s an obvious problem: Texas and North Carolina have both banned DEI at their public universities.

NEW: The National Science Foundation is currently giving $10 million to implement a DEI-focused hiring program at universities in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina.

Exclusive docs show how this fellow-to-faculty scheme discriminates by race/sex—and favors scholar-activists 🧵
Run through the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC)—and named “Re-Imagining STEM Equity Utilizing Postdoctoral Pathways,” or RISE UPP—the program was designed to foster “recruitment, engagement, and transition to faculty roles for minoritized postdoctoral scholars."

VIDEOS: The University of California System spearheaded a special side-door hiring scheme for scholars committed to diversity.

But at UC Riverside, multiple professors raised serious concerns about the model—namely, that it pushes an ideological agenda. 🧵🧵🧵 In 2023, Douglas Haynes, a UC System vice provost, appeared on aUC Riverside panel on the President's Postdoctoral Fellowship Program.

In Q&A, several professors raised the issue. “What I wonder about is whether there is an ideological litmus test," said Steven Brint.