Introducing a New Term: DEIism
Today, I am introducing a new term: DEIism. DEIism refers to the ideological movement or practice of targeting, reporting, and dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives under the guise of neutrality or accountability. Like McCarthyism in the mid-20th century, which used national security fears to justify political purges, DEIism fosters a culture of surveillance, fear, and institutional suppression, where individuals and organizations are pressured to police or eliminate DEI efforts. But this is more than just a backlash—it is a strategic, coordinated effort to reverse decades of research-based progress for student success by branding DEI as unnecessary, politically biased, or even dangerous.
Some institutions have adopted a direct and public approach, openly dismantling DEI programs, terminating or pressuring staff to resign, and eliminating policies aimed at fostering inclusivity and supporting the success of students, faculty, and staff. Others, however, operate in secrecy and performative reassurance—sending campus-wide emails about their commitment to diversity, claiming they are listening, that they care, and that they support students, faculty, and staff—while quietly dismantling DEI infrastructure behind closed doors. In some cases, even Vice Presidents for DEI may play a role in this rollback, positioning themselves as pragmatic navigators while allowing the erosion of diversity efforts under their leadership. In contrast, some universities are strategically resisting, working in coalitions to preserve policies that foster the success of all members of their campus communities. These diverging responses create a moment of reckoning in higher education, where institutions must decide whether to stand firm, retreat, or quietly dismantle under the cover of “neutrality.”
DEIism and the Ghost of McCarthyism
The parallels between McCarthyism and DEIism are striking. In the mid-20th century, McCarthyism weaponized fear and secrecy to silence dissent, blacklist individuals, and dismantle institutions under the pretense of rooting out communist influence. Characterized by closed-door investigations, anonymous accusations, and forced loyalty tests, McCarthyism fostered a culture of surveillance, where mere suspicion was enough to destroy reputations and careers.
Today, DEIism mirrors this historical pattern, using manufactured outrage and stoking ideological fear to justify the dismantling of DEI efforts in institutions across the country. Both movements rely on secret investigations, anonymous reporting, and institutional pressure to purge so-called “undesirable” influences, creating a climate where self-censorship, compliance, and silent complicity become the norm.
As the current anti-DEI movement escalates, one question consistently arises: What comes next in this playbook? Looking back at history, we already know the answer. McCarthyism provides a blueprint for how fear-driven political purges unfold—through closed-door investigations, professional blacklists, anonymous informants, and attempts to destroy careers with vague, unproven, and unanswered accusations. To add a veneer of respectability, lawyers are often brought in to legitimize the process, crafting policies and justifications that obscure the political motivations behind these efforts while making the dismantling of DEI appear procedurally sound.
What Comes Next? The Playbook for Dismantling DEI
What we are witnessing today is a calculated, step-by-step process designed to dismantle DEI in higher education. What comes next is:
- Increased secrecy: DEI investigations and reviews will increasingly occur behind closed doors, leaving faculty and staff unaware of key decisions until they are finalized.
- Expanded surveillance: Universities will monitor DEI advocates more closely, using anonymous complaints and “whistleblower” reports to justify eliminating programs.
- Targeted firings: DEI offices will be dismantled under the pretense of budget cuts or restructuring, with little public accountability for the decisions usually made in secret.
- Framing the rollback as “neutral” policy enforcement: Universities will claim DEI efforts are being removed in the name of fairness, efficiency, or legal compliance, disguising ideological agendas as administrative necessity.
- Punishing vocal supporters: Faculty, staff, and students who advocate for DEI may face professional retaliation, either overtly or through exclusion from key opportunities.
How Universities Are Responding: The Three Playbooks
This pattern is already unfolding across the country, but I see universities responding in three distinct ways:
- The Direct Attackers (Clear and Open Dismantling)
- Some universities, such as the University of Texas at Austin and Ohio State, are taking a clear and public stance by eliminating DEI programs, firing DEI staff, and reshaping policies to align with state-mandated restrictions.
- These institutions make no effort to hide their position, choosing to comply fully with political demands at the expense of student, faculty and staff success.
- The Performative Institutions (Saying One Thing, Doing Another)
- These universities claim to support DEI efforts publicly while dismantling them privately.
- They send campus-wide emails stating their commitment to diversity and willingness to listen, but in practice, they cut funding, eliminate positions, and quietly dismantle programs.
- In some cases, even Vice Presidents for DEI are complicit, choosing to comply rather than resist, justifying rollbacks as strategic survival rather than ideological surrender.
- The Strategic Defenders (Building Coalitions to Protect DEI)
- Some universities are fighting back with strategic, long-term solutions designed to sustain DEI efforts despite mounting political pressure.
- These institutions focus on coalition-building, policy structuring, and legal defense strategies to ensure that all students, faculty, and staff continue to have opportunities to thrive.
- They recognize that DEI is not just about policy—it is about ensuring every person on campus has the chance to succeed.
History Repeats Itself: Will We Allow It?
By examining how McCarthy-era investigations operated in secrecy, we can better recognize the modern parallels and the dangers of allowing ideological suppression to shape institutional policies, undermine academic freedom, and erode freedom of speech.
What happened during McCarthyism was not just about the individuals targeted—it was about forced complicity, silent compliance, and the slow erosion of fundamental freedoms.
The same questions must be asked today:
- Who is standing firm?
- Who is retreating?
- Who is quietly dismantling DEI under the cover of “neutrality”?
As we navigate this new era of DEIism, we must remember that the suppression of progress never happens all at once—it unfolds incrementally, behind the scenes, through policy shifts that appear neutral on the surface but are deeply ideological at their core. Presidents, provosts, executive cabinet members and deans play an outsized role in shaping these institutional responses, wielding significant influence over whether diversity efforts are protected or dismantled. This dynamic is particularly concerning in institutions that fall into The Direct Attackers and The Performative Institutions categories, where leadership either openly eliminates DEI initiatives or covertly undermines them while maintaining a façade of commitment. In both cases, those in power are key architects of either resistance or regression, determining whether their institutions stand firm, retreat, or quietly erode progress under the guise of “neutrality.”
History is repeating itself. Will we recognize the pattern in time?
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.” In moments of ideological suppression, silence is not “neutrality”—it is complicity. The question is no longer whether DEIism is happening, but rather who will have the courage to resist, who will quietly comply, and who will help rewrite the narrative before history repeats itself once again.