https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-universities-dei-diversity-center-right-critics
Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has taken decisive action against DEI in universities, threatening to investigate, punish, and withhold funding from higher education institutions that discriminate in the name of diversity. Most conservatives, who correctly see DEI as a threat to colorblind equality, have celebrated these maneuvers. But some center-right intellectuals, who claim to oppose DEI in theory, have criticized the White House for using administrative power to eliminate it in practice.
One such figure is Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, who has gained attention in recent years as an insider critic of DEI. He has been mildly critical of diversity statements in faculty hiring, which he claims infringe on “academic freedom” and diminish “the true value of diversity.” Some conservatives praise him as a reformer, but the truth is more complicated: as dean, Flier was not a critic of DEI at all. In fact, he oversaw its rapid expansion and became a critic only after he retired from that position.
Last month on X, I asked Flier to substantiate the facts about his opposition to DEI. “When you were Dean of Harvard Medical School, what did you do to stop racial discrimination in admissions, hiring, and programs?” I asked. “Why can’t I find any record of you speaking out against your department’s illegal DEI practices when you were in charge?”
Flier attempted to duck the question but eventually relented. “[W]hen I was dean, affirmative action in admissions and various DEI programs were not illegal,” he replied.
This approach distorted the law—discriminatory hiring programs have always violated the Civil Rights Act. And Flier’s reply was an evasion. He would rather quibble over legal technicalities than grapple with his conduct as an administrator.
After resigning as dean, Flier himself admitted that he knew requiring diversity statements in faculty hiring was wrong but could only publicly express his criticism once he was out of power. “As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said [that I oppose requiring diversity statements]. But I will now.” In other words, Flier knew that these initiatives violated his principles but refused to voice his opinion at the time, not because of legal technicalities—a post hoc rationalization—but because it would have jeopardized his career. He could have opposed DEI, but chose not to, out of fear.
