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.

NEW: The University of California's "President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program" serves as a faculty hiring model for universities around the country.

It also creates big problems for academic freedom, and professors have increasingly sounded the alarm. 🧵 David Turner is an assistant professor in UCLA’s school of public affairs.

In his spare time, Turner does community activism, having co-founded the “Police-Free LAUSD Coalition,” a group that calls for wholesale police abolition.

1/ UC Davis is still investigating Jemma Decristo for these ⬇️⬇️ comments.

My reporting shows: UC Davis recruited Decristo through a postdoc program that gives special favor to scholar-activists.

Here are a few other beneficiaries of the vast scholar-activist pipeline. 🧵🧵🧵 2/ Here’s how it works: these fellows are 1) hired through a less-competitive process focused on diversity and then 2) heavily favored for a tenure-track jobs at the conclusion of the postdocs.

Its a side door into the faculty lounge—very convenient for admin pushing an agenda.

NEW: Days after the 10/7 Hama attack, UC Davis professor Jemma Decristo posted threateningly (⬇️⬇️) about "zionist journalists."

It rightly sparked outrage. But an even bigger story is how Decristo was recruited to a tenure-track job at UC Davis in the first place 🧵 Today I’m introducing a series of investigations (@CityJournal) on the scholar-activist pipeline.

For years, universities, private foundations, and federal agencies have furnished a well-funded career pathway for scholar who hold an activist vision for higher education.

NEW: Louis Galarowicz (@nasorg) and I have acquired a trove of records from University of Colorado, Boulder, that show how the entire university coordinated to advance a system of brazen race-based hiring.

The receipts are pretty astonishing... 🧵 @NASorg We acquired the approved/successful proposals for the university's large-scale diversity hiring program. Here are a few examples:

The College of Engineering & Applied Sciences said its cluster hire had “the goal of doubling our underrepresented faculty in the college.”

NEW: According to emails I've acquired via records request, Dana Renga, Ohio State's Dean of Arts and Humanities, enthusiastically approved a faculty search committee report that boasted about blatant race-based discrimination.

🧵🧵🧵
As I’ve previously reported, an OSU search committee, hiring a professor of “black France,” stated it was "essential" to hire a “visible minority.”

“We thus chose three Black candidates” for on campus interviews, the report states.

NEW: At the University of Kansas, a new center aims to recruit “scholar-activists” to help fight “anti-trans bills.”

It also seeks to “transform the academy” while advancing a “theory and practice of transgender liberation"—according to records I've acquired.

🧵🧵🧵 "Trans Studies at the Commons" kicked off this year via a $1M grant from the Mellon Foundation.

The program—which promises hire a new professor and doll out virtual fellowships—is meant to serves as a hub for trans studies.

Through FOIA, I've acquired the proposal. ⬇️⬇️⬇️

I talk to a lot of professors who hesitate to publicly push back against institutional madness.

It makes sense. Universities can make their lives miserable.

But two recent examples should inspire dissenters. Faculty who take a stand hold more card than one might think...

🧵🧵 Yesterday, a University of Michigan physics professor called out the president and board of regents — directly, in a public setting — for supporting what he described as blatantly discriminatory programs.

A truly remarkable statement.

At the University of Michigan, a large-scale hiring program only recruits scholars who show a “commitment to DEI.”

In practice, its a career pipeline program for scholars in activist disciplines—like “trans of color epistemologies” and “queer of color critique."

🧵🧵🧵


After the New York Times published on Michigan’s DEI bureaucracy, the university scrubbed (❗️❗️) the Collegiate Fellows Program directory from its webpage.

But I saved archived links.

Here’s what the much-celebrated initiative looks like in practice.