DEI: Fix It, Don't Kill It

Across our universities, there is a pronounced commitment to both First Amendment rights and DEI principles. But the application of these commitments often reveals a troubling inconsistency: the central values of free speech and DEI seem to shift depending on who is speaking.

When the group expressing views fits into a "marginalized" category, freedom of speech takes precedence. But if the group is perceived as part of a "majority," suddenly DEI and a misplaced pronouncement for emotional safety becomes the priority. There is a growing sense that values are selectively enforced depending on the speakers.

When we abandon neutrality in the protection of speech — when certain groups receive leniency under the guise of protecting speech while others are condemned for microaggressions — it undermines our goals for a safe and inclusive educational environment. This selective enforcement breeds mistrust among the entire campus community.

This selective application leads to a divisive atmosphere where students feel that justice and support are conditional — dependent more on their group affiliation than on the content of their actions or speech. When behaviors are overlooked or disproportionately punished based on identity, it perpetuates the very systemic inequalities that DEI initiatives aim to combat.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struggled for more than two centuries to define the limits of free speech. Don't expect universities to figure it out overnight. At the same time, we need to call out the brazen double standard in application. We are tolerating behavior that should be disciplined and disciplining behavior that should be allowed.

DEI, at its core, works. It is designed to ensure that every individual, regardless of identity, is treated with fairness and respect, and that everyone has equal access to opportunities. But if these principles are applied inconsistently, it results in significant vulnerabilities within our educational system.