Effective immediately
After many months of intense discussion and reflection involving multiple stakeholders across and beyond the University of Michigan, the administration is moving forward with important changes to its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
The changes, outlined in a March 27 email message from University leaders to the Ann Arbor and Michigan Medicine communities, include closing the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion, as well as discontinuing the DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan. The changes are effective immediately.
In the months ahead, the University will shift resources to increase investments in student-facing programs, such as financial aid, mental health resources, pre-professional counseling, and other efforts that strengthen community, promote a sense of belonging, and expand accessibility.“These decisions have not been made lightly. We recognize the changes are significant and will be challenging for many of us, especially those whose lives and careers have been enriched by and dedicated to programs that are now pivoting,” said the message, signed by President Santa J. Ono; Laurie K. McCauley, provost and executive vice president for academic affairs; Marschall S. Runge, executive vice president for medical affairs; and Geoffrey S. Chatas, executive vice president and chief financial officer.
“We are deeply grateful for the meaningful contributions of leaders, faculty, and staff who have advanced our ongoing efforts to create an ever-more inclusive and respectful community.”
Recognizing progress
The message recognized important progress since the launch of the DEI strategic plan in 2016. First-generation undergraduate students, for example, have increased 46% and undergraduate Pell recipients have increased by more than 32%, driven in part by the success of programs such as Go Blue Guarantee and Wolverine Pathways.“Over the course of our strategic efforts, we have heard strong pride in the University’s support for student-facing programs,” the message said. “We have also heard concerns about the balance of resources between administration and direct student support. Some in our campus community have voiced frustration that they did not feel included in DEI initiatives and that the programming fell short in fostering connections among diverse groups.”
As part of ongoing assessments, McCauley convened a special committee last year, co-sponsored by the vice president for government relations and chief diversity officer, which brought together deans, faculty, and staff to review the structural aspects of U-M’s DEI efforts.
After leadership and board discussions, the executive vice presidents presented a plan to the Board of Regents, leading to further deliberation in tandem with the early months of the new presidential administration when executive orders and federal guidance — including several that broadly criticized DEI programs — began to reshape higher education. University leaders engaged national associations, policy advisers, and others to navigate the implications of the federal directives, which have intensified.Moving forward
The message announced additional actions, including the following.
- All units will evaluate their web presence to reflect the status of the current programmatic directions and for compliance with federal executive orders and guidance.
- The decision to end the use of diversity statements in faculty hiring, which was made earlier this academic year, will be applied Universitywide; and statements related to a person’s commitment to DEI will no longer be solicited or considered in admissions, hiring, promotion, awards, annual reviews, or other assessments for faculty and staff.
- Individual leads, who have supported DEI efforts in schools, colleges, and units, will refocus their full effort on their core responsibilities.
- The Office of the General Counsel will initiate an expedited review to ensure all policies, programs, and practices comply with federal law and guidance.
“We remain committed to fostering an environment that values and supports every member of our community and honors diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences,” the message from leaders said. “In the months ahead, the University will increase investments in student-facing programs.”
These investments include:
- Expanding financial aid: As previously announced, the Go Blue Guarantee has been expanded to benefit all families with an income of $125,000 or less. Other ways to further reduce the cost of attendance will be explored.
- Enhancing mental health support: Mental health resources will be increased to better support all students.
- Expanding the Blavin Scholars Program: Given its exceptional impact, a plan will be developed to expand this program to serve even more students.
- Strengthening academic success: U-M will explore ways to enhance student success through improved advising, counseling, and pre-professional guidance, as well as continue investing in innovative approaches, such as 24/7 AI tutors and a personal AI assistant for every member of the community.
- Fostering community and belonging: U-M will seek opportunities to expand student life programs that strengthen community, promote a sense of belonging, and expand accessibility.
- Preserving key student spaces: The University remains committed to maintaining vital student spaces, including the Trotter Multicultural Center, the Spectrum Center, and various multicultural spaces in residence halls, all of which are open to all students.
- Celebrating cultural and ethnic programs: Cultural and ethnic events that enrich our campus and foster a vibrant, inclusive environment will continue to be supported.
“These efforts underscore our commitment to prioritizing student-facing initiatives and ensuring resources are directed where they will have the greatest impact,” the message said. “We stand steadfast in our dedication to academic freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and to lifting the distinct, ineffable potential of every individual in our community.”
(This story is republished courtesy of the University Record. Lead image: Michigan Photography.)
Nicholas Dahlin - 2012, 2014
As an alumni I am incredibly disappointed in the school. DEI in crucial to our shared success. As a white male I see the implicit bias we have on other genders and cultures every day and I see the great need we have to accept others as an engineer who designs products for use around the world. To ignore this bias that humanity has is shortsighted and moronic. We need DEI programs as a safeguard to ensure all cultures and genders are taken into account. U of M is failing as a university right now and I am disappointed to be associated with it.
Reply
Lisa Barney - 2005, 2009
I want to echo many of the comments I see here. I have been so proud to be a Wolverine because the University of Michigan was a leader in progressive initiatives, focused on building a better world for all. I am profoundly disappointed to know that UM is choosing to act in such a cowardly fashion, capitulating to the demands of fascists. UM is supposed to be the home of the leaders and best. I am profoundly disappointed in my alma mater.
Reply
Michael Hollenbach - 1978
I hoped for more from Michigan if I didn’t expect it. Autocracies depend on the capitulation of the populace, especially key institutions like universities, the press, big law, etc. And here we are.
Reply
Tim Bartholow - 1973, 1974, 1979
Well said!
Reply
Susan Wright - 1974
I whole heartedly agree with the disappointment expressed here. I had hoped for more from the U of M. Capitulating in advance of the action opens the door to autocracy.
Reply
Richard Batsavage - 1967
Now the University has joined the Athletic Department in adopting– It’s all about the money. Caving to government coercion never turns out well. As Pastor Bonhoeffer said “And then they came for me”
Reply
Gary Allard - 1973
Right on Michael!
Reply
Michael Pabian - 1976
Agreed.
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
Another way to look at it is that the University had the point driven home to them that they cannot exist in a left-wing utopian bubble and spend other people’s money at the same time. The University is an American institution (a cosmopolitan one but still American) and DEI does not enjoy popular support.
Reply
John Nyquist - 1974, 1976
I wholeheartedly agree with Nicholas Dahlin. I never thought I would be ashamed of my alma mater but I am now.
Reply
Donald Runkle - 1968, 1971
I am so proud that Michigan, the Board of Trustees and President Ono have taken the bold step of closing down the DEI initiatives. The value of our degrees just increased. DEI has been an expensive failure as revealed by Michigan’s own internal assessment. We should all want diversity of thought as the Trustee approved 2-page summary of January 2024 announced. Michigan can now return to meritocracy and build on diversity of thought, not based on skin color, gender, religion, etc. I’m hopeful that Michigan will also move aggressively to putting in place a political balance in the administration and teaching staff. How could diversity of thought ever be achieved with 90% of the teaching and administrative staff being members of a single political party. That makes no sense.
Again congrats on being “the leader and best”.
Reply
Mark Tanase - 1991
Donald Runkle: Couldn’t agree more. These are changes I want to see from Michigan.
Reply
Roxane Chan - 2013
As a wolverine and an experienced academic and researcher I can say that political party never informs research or curriculum. The reason higher education appears “liberal” is because the truth of who we are and the results of research continue to point us in the direction of inclusivity. Higher education naturally advances inclusivity and uncovers the truth that, race is a social construct, differently abled people are valuable to our community and that gender is fluid. It is not politics. It is advancement of thought. We need to to grow and adapt to survive as a nation and a community within a world that is searching for answers.
Reply
Beth Gonzales - 2000, 2010
Well said, Roxane. Politics should not be a determining factor in guiding research, curriculum, or higher learning. I am extremely disappointed in these decisions. Practices and measures established under DEI address and correct discriminatory policies. U of M needs this type of accountability to stay a leader within the realm of higher education — AND TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THE SUPPORT!
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
how do you know? maybe not in the hard sciences but I’d be very surprised if Social Science research, to give one example, was not directly influenced by political priorities. They were making faculty candidates sign DEI loyalty letters — the message to new (and existing) faculty is clear. This is political ideology directly influencing research. It is a corruption of the University’s core mission.
Reply
Bryan Benoit - 1996, 1999
There is a reason why fields like teaching are loaded with Democrats and it is not hiring bias. I love my Republican friends but they have a few things in common:
1. A commitment to undermining public education and higher education (a stance that was taken by Republicans after the Democrats embraced civil rights).
2. A commitment to the belief that financial rewards motivate all human behavior and that financial success is an accurate measure of worth. It does for my Republican friends, which is fine with me, however, as you know, teaching is rarely a path to riches.
If you think this is all about a return to meritocracy, keep in mind that universities long favored athletes and the children of donors, faculty, and alumni. At one time, they also favored white male applicants. The impact of DEI on undermining meritocracy pales in comparison to these past, present, and continuing injustices. Also, keep in mind #1 above.
Reply
John Dinkel - 1967, 1969
Mr Runkle, I agree with your comments 115%. Yeah, that’s my new math. But you are right. We had moved too far in the DEI direction and hopefully the course of the university and the courses taught have been corrected.
Reply
John Dinkel - 1967, 1969
Your innate bias against “Republicans” and those you consider Republicans is noted. “Methinks he doth protest too much.”
Reply
Daniel Herman - 1982
Well said, Donald! I couldn’t agree more.
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
they had no choice, they were forced to do it. Which is why I find all the talk in this article about “after careful discussion with multiple centers of expertise and various stakeholders in educational excellence, blah blah blah” to be amusing. They put themselves into an untenable position with their loyalty oaths, trained operatives and biased admission policies and they were forced to recant.
Reply
christopher Luring - 2013
Excited that U of M is finally waking up to the corruption of DEI and the lie that it is. We ask for the best doctors to care for our loved ones, best contractors to fix our houses and best mechanics to work on our cars. If one is good at what they do they will be rewarded. A society based on merit and not some irrational quota system is best for all.
Reply
Michelle B
The University of Michigan Law School evaluated the success of its graduates under their “lower” standards admittance policy and found that all of those students did as well as all of those students admitted based on the higher standards. If we follow just test scores, all of Harvard will consist of Asian students as they tend to score highest on standardized tests. Or only the wealthy that can afford tutors to do best of SAT’s will be admitted. And test scores and GPA’s are not the best predictor of post graduation success. So having policies that look at diversity would allow for consideration of grit and determination despite coming from a school system with limited resources.
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
not sure how the “lower admittance” students were evaluated after graduation but was it color-blind? It’s possible they were also held to a lower standard after graduation; many corporations have (until now) embraced DEI as well. And what’s wrong with everyone at Harvard being asian (or any other group for that matter)? as long as they stay in the country after graduation and contribute to its success I have no problem with that.
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
Kind of you to give some white guy’s slot away after you’ve got your degree. The pure subjectivity in phrases like “implicit bias” is what allowed the University to create an entire apparatus to skew admissions and hiring to being based on the color of your skin. Not sure how this is “crucial in our shared success”.
Reply
Robin Peterson - 2024
I want to decry this as cowardice in the face of autocracy—is this just the university bowing to federal demands to preserve its riches? But perhaps DEI was more performative than structural at this institution. Either way, it’s deeply disappointing to see such a failure of leadership.
Reply
Erica Danos - 1985, 1989
Read between the lines. The commitment is still there and always will be. Do not believe that the Harvard of the Midwest /Berkley of the East would drop its values. What has been performative is the bullying the Trump administration utilizes but is short term. The UM commitment to Liberal Arts Education (that degree name has not yet been banned), increasing access to higher education and support to historically underrepresented students has not waned (better not have !). Real politik says we need to live to fight another day. And removing websites, verbiage, etc while reassigning but not eliminating staff shows they’ll be ready when the ignorant fascist menace subsides.
What is worse is the comments by alums denigrating the concept behind DEI initiatives.
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
perhaps the real issue is the arrogance of an institution of higher learning in creating its own political ecosphere under pressure from left-wing academics, all while taking the money of the larger society of which it seems to have forgotten it is a part.
Reply
Susan Taylor - 1986
I am disappointed that the University of Michigan has eliminated DEI. Call your changes whatever you want, but not only should you retain DEI, you should redouble your efforts to achieve its fullest potential.
Reply
Anne Magro - 1987
These decisions by university leadership are deeply disappointing. DEI efforts have been focused on ensuring that all students, faculty, and staff have access to the resources they need to be successful at Michigan. You cannot assure that all students have that access without also acknowledging that some groups face systemic challenges to their success. DEI programs have tried to either remove those challenges or support community members in overcoming them so all can reach their full potential. This current move to dismantle DEI programming is simply cowardice in the face of bullying and diminishes Michigan’s reputation, contributions to society, and ability to claim a role in the transformative power of higher education. I am ashamed of my alma mater and disappointed in higher education across the board. We should be standing together to make the case for our values instead of cowering before a tyrant.
Reply
Gregory Justin Bogdanovitch - 1987
I too am deeply ashamed by my alma mater—wolverines are supposed to be tenacious not weak and sycophantic to authoritarian rulings.
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
“all students, faculty, and staff”
this isn’t true, hence the loss of funding.
Reply
Leland MacMillan - 1970
As an “old white guy” I am disappointed by Michigan’s abandonment of DEI initiatives. OTOH, I understand that the loss of massive federal funds could deal a death blow to many research projects. We can only hope that come 2028, we will see a return to normalcy at the federal level and that wannabe kings and bigots will no longer control the federal government.
Reply
Hilary Nigro - 1988
I am extremely disappointed in the school. I cannot continue to support a school that doesn’t support DEI.
Reply
Liana Trevino - 2011
Good morning,
I am surprised that a decision was made to follow orders of a fascist government, instead of maintaining integrity. These are difficult times where choices about how we spend our money, spend our time, and if we keep certain relationships in our lives is a daily struggle. It is deeply disappointing to witness as a diverse alumna that it took just one corrupt federal administration to walk back on work you all know has made this University the leading public school in the world. The community won’t soon forget on which side of history you so willing chose to stand.
Liana
Reply
Shari Krasnow-Renzi - 1988
100%!! As an alumni and parent of an LGBTQ current student, it is utterly pathetic and shameful that our university, which I have always thought stood ground, made impactful choices and paved our own way, and has for so long been committed to social justice has completely caved to a dictator. Especially when we all know how much money the university already has in the endowment coffers. Just cowardly and completely contrary to what University of Michigan stands for! No more money from me!
Reply
Madeline Serena - 2007
Shame on Michigan for capitulating to fascists in advance without being asked. You are yielding power and closing something that is core to the value of the school. This is where the peace corps was founded, where diversity and equity is to be proudly celebrated and advanced. I’m ashamed to call myself a Wolverine with this cowardly move.
Reply
Priyanka Pathak - 2006
Perhaps another fitting and timely pivot for the University administration could be to update our fight song to a “capitulation song”.
It is jarring to think that the same university that stood up for Affirmative Action at the US Supreme Court is immediately lying down without a fight.
Reply
Theodore Trost - 1976
Changing “Hail” to “Heil” would accomplish this intention succinctly.
Reply
Nancy Creason - 1977
I echo the previous statements this is a huge disappointment and an act of cowardice.
Reply
Brad Greenlee - 1993
I’m incredibly disappointed in my alma mater. I did not expect such a great institution to cave to the racism and sexism of the current administration. Clearly money matters more than integrity.
Reply
Rebecca Maxey - 2007
We are no longer the leaders and best. These decisions are cowardly and make me ashamed to be a Michigan alum. What an utter failure of leadership to meet the moment and fight back against fascism.
Reply
Tim Elsey - 2009
You cannot appease fascists. To not even try to fight this current administration is beyond cowardly and disappointing.
Reply
Charlotte Shyne - 1975, 1978
Right On, Rebecca and Tim. As eloquently stated by Frederick Douglass, “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Reply
Clifford Leaman - MM 1985; DMA 1988
This is an extraordinarily disappointing and weak decision. I would have expected strong leadership from the University in supporting underprivileged groups of people. It is beyond my comprehension that an AAU university that considers itself to be a leader in the world would bend the knee to such offensive policies as those being pushed by the current leadership in Washington DC. When I was a student in the 1980s, there were more inclusive, open-minded policies than what we are now seeing. Is it not one of the fundamental responsibilities of the university to broaden the minds of its various constituencies? How might that occur if diversity, equity and inclusivity are not part of the process of faculty recruitment/hiring and student selection? If top-tier Universities do not push back against this kind of ignorance, who will?
Reply
Dean McQuiston - 2000
The fundamental responsibility of any institution of higher learning is to pursue knowledge and disseminate it to its students, and thereby to the society at large. This alone will lead to a “broadening of minds”, not a liberal orthodoxy being imposed on faculty and the student body through coercion. It is important to understand the difference.
Reply
Joan Herbert - 1986
I want to thank President Ono for refocusing (and hopefully not just re-naming) resources away from DEI and instead fostering programs that will lift all students to be able to compete and complete their degrees based on merit.
Reply
Alan Orrick
You seriously misunderstand what DEI means.
Reply
Audra Rance - 1995
Totally agree. That’s the very essence and intent of DEI…to lift all students and give everyone an opportunity to succeed. I wish folks would seek out the truth about these programs instead of listening to the lies and hate from a fascist government that seeks to only divide us.
Reply
Nigel Tufnel - 1982
Do you? Michigan, when I was there, was a university based on merit achievement – DEI flies in the face of it, there is nothing fair about it, and, at the same time, is a colossal waste of money, money that can be used for research, financial aid, mental health, et. al.
Reply
Jerry Bradshaw - 2020
You truly have no grasp on what DEI means or how it functions. I don’t expect much from easily manipulated boomers without degrees, but I figured a college education would have at least taught most of you critical thinking skills…or at least the ability to do a simple Google search. Your dissenting opinion on DEI – like MAGA – is the minority view.
Reply
Lisa Aulerich - 1989
I wonder if you are able to give a concrete example of the waste of money to which you refer. Your comments here, Nigel, lead me to believe you don’t understand what DEI is.
Reply
Deborah Holdship
Interesting choice in a nom de plume.
Reply
KC Sunshine - '80, '92
“Our amps go to 11”
Reply
KC Sunshine - '80, '92
Your reply is echoed by many others who assert – without evidence – that the author “seriously misunderstands what DEI means.”
I’m here to tell you that many of us who oppose DEI (as it is currently practiced) know *exactly* what DEI means because we have lived it; including me, who had to suffer through years of DEI “training” at of all places, the U of M.
No sir, we know exactly what DEI means, and lecturing to us that essentially “You’re too ignorant, stupid or uninformed” is not a compelling argument.
Reply
William White - 2006
Well said Joan. I am appalled that so many Americans think it appropriate to stereotype and discriminate against others based upon skin color, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc. Scanning through the comments here it is obvious that too many alumni of this great University support illegal discrimination masquerading as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity”.
Note the Orwellian speech used in so many of these comments: “That’s the very essence of DEI… to lift all students…” when every listener knows that DEI programs only benefited certain groups at the expense of opportunities for other (less favored) groups of people. The explicit goal of “Equity” is equality of outcomes, and not equality of opportunities. The fundamental principles of DEI are both explicitly racist (some groups of individuals are too successful) and implicitly racist (other individuals are not successful because of their race), all at the same time.
It is unfortunate that Americans tolerated DEI offices on US campuses for as long as they did, many young people suffered needlessly in the process, and our country was weakened by these flawed leftist ideals.
Reply
Mark Tanase - 1991
Agreed. I am glad to see the back of institutionalised discrimination.
Reply
Charlotte Shyne - 1975, 1978
Sir, may I invite you to study American history. Discrimination is what happened when people of color in Africa were kidnapped and brought to this continent and forced to endure 400 years of inhumane treatment. And when their physical bonds were lawfully broken, they were forced to endure another 75 years of Jim Crow exclusion from opportunities to make a decent standard of living, which, by the way, elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is simply Jim Crow revisited. America has never atoned for this sin. The thinking posited by current “leadership” is a shameful travesty. Please learn the truth about American history before you comment on matters of discrimination.
Reply
Jerry Bradshaw - 2020
We can already see how removing diversity, equity, and Inclusion is allowing unqualified clowns to run government services simply based on their lack of melanin. DEI wouldn’t be a partisan issue if the right weren’t populated by easily manipulated terrified white men.
Reply
Mark Tanase - 1991
I join your feeling of gratitude for President Ono’s decision. I only wish that it had come sooner and from an independently determined desire to do away with discrimination as a matter of integrity regardless of the current administration.
Reply
Diana Kardia - 1989, 1991, 1996
In 2003, I helped write the original funding proposal to the Ford Foundation for Michigan’s Center for Institutional Diversity, submitted by Mary Sue Coleman. This center belonged at Michigan: “We have earned a national credibility and accepted a national responsibility to advance the ways by which diversity and education serve as means to achieve the goals of equity, democracy, and freedom in our society. The nation is watching to see what steps Michigan takes. It is our intent to be known as visionaries who make a difference, bringing creativity, initiative, determination and passion to improving both education and the diverse society that we serve…We cannot take on this ambitious leadership role if we are not already fully committed to this work inside our own institution: to being a place where the mutual and synergistic benefits of diversity and education are sought, valued, and cultivated in full recognition of the conflicts that are embedded in diverse environments.” Michigan has not always succeeded at these goals, but it has defined the role of a university in committing to these values.
More than any university I have known (and as a consultant to higher ed, I have known many), Michigan has taken its core commitment to intellectual merit and gold standard education for all so seriously that it has helped generations of students, faculty, scholars, and leaders enact these principles across all aspects of academia: classrooms, hiring decisions, funding decisions, career development, and more. Without Michigan at the helm, this work will continue through all the incredible people who emerged from the Michigan experience, those who make this their life’s work like me and those who just learned how to be effective inspired people in their lives and work. That legacy cannot be undone. But Michigan’s legacy going forward is now a new one, no longer the leader, nor the best. Time will tell just how far the fall will be.
Reply
Theresa Jackson - 1991
As a graduate of the school of Communications, I must say this article goes out of its way NOT to say the University has abandoned its DEI program. Let’s use the full words. The University of Michigan has abandoned its responsibility to foster and protect a diverse, equitable and inclusive environment for all on campus. I have never been so disappointed in my alma mater. We can no longer claim to be the leaders and best.
Reply
Gregory Papas - 2019
One embarrassment after another. Zero integrity. Santa Ono needs to resign.
Reply
Shirley Roberts - 1980, 1992
I am concerned that nothing in this article speaks to the issues around health equity and how they will be addressed in this new environment. Can the University actually administer a billion dollar healthcare enterprise without acknowledging and working to eradicate the inequities in health outcomes across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups? And are public health researchers at Michigan now even precluded from studying this vexing and persistent issue? I’m hanging up my Block M gear until such time that I can once again wear it proudly. It appears that the University has just taken a giant step down an exceedingly slippery slope.
Reply
Calvin Lee
Shirley,
I appreciate your frank expression of concern regarding the University’s approach to health equity. As a former student of the School of Public Health, I witnessed firsthand that the inequities we grappled with in 1993 remain stubbornly persistent today. Managing a large health care enterprise without a clear strategy for eradicating disparities seems not only shortsighted but potentially dangerous.
The university’s decision, as it currently stands, raises serious questions about its commitment to fostering a research environment where public health scholars can rigorously study and address the inequities that affect racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. By scaling back support for programs that have historically underpinned these efforts, we risk sidelining the critical inquiry and policy innovation needed to tackle health disparities head-on.
I share your sentiment: until there is a clear, robust commitment to addressing these systemic issues, it’s difficult to feel confident in the institution’s direction. The legacy of leadership and inquiry from previous generations should serve as a reminder that confronting inequity must remain at the forefront of both academic and practical endeavors in healthcare.
Reply
KC Sunshine - '80, '92
Calvin and Shirley,
The problem with DEI as it pertains to public health is that it doesn’t really work to address *all* health disparities, just the ones that are important to progressives.
As but one example, Calvin, you noted the disparity in life expectancy for African American vs. white men as being ~4 years, however you ignore the elephant in the room, i.e., the disparities between *all* men vs.*all* women, which is almost twice as large at about 7 years, in favor of women. This has been true for many decades. However, despite this distinct advantage for women re. morbidity and mortality across almost the entire spectrum of public health issues, one finds a multitude of women’s health programs, studies, etc., yet for the most part men’s health is completely ignored in the public health community except in cases where it can bundled into African American or other minority health.
You see, this is the problem with the “equity” part of DEI: It only goes in one direction, which is stuck in last-century thinking and fails to address emerging issues, well, equitably. I think that this is why the rhetoric has changed from “marginalized groups” to “historically marginalized groups” so that the progressives can ‘freeze’ the favored groups in place even though once-marginalized groups have become the favored groups, and vice=versa.
Reply
Calvin Lee
KC, (I.e., Mr. Anonymous)
It’s fascinating to see how your “what about” pivot conveniently redirects the conversation from addressing persistent health inequities among historically marginalized groups to spotlighting a long-known, yet contextually distinct, gender gap. Of course, comparing the 4-year disparity in life expectancy between African American and white men to a 7-year gap between all men and all women seems like an ingenious way to distract from the core issue—almost as if public health equity is a zero-sum game where one disparity’s importance somehow negates another’s.
Ironically, the argument implies that because men’s health issues are not given the same robust, targeted programming as women’s health, they are somehow immune from scrutiny. This conveniently ignores the fact that the Department of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts in public health are not designed to solve every disparity in one fell swoop. Instead, they are tailored to dismantle the historical, systemic barriers that have long plagued marginalized communities—barriers that are hardly analogous to the broader, demographic-based differences in health outcomes between genders.
It’s worth noting that shifting terminology from “marginalized groups” to “historically marginalized groups” isn’t a clever ploy to “freeze” favored groups in place, but a necessary evolution in language that reflects the dynamic nature of power and privilege. While emerging issues in men’s health deserve attention, conflating these distinct challenges into a single debate on DEI does little to further meaningful progress.
In short, your focus, though creatively angled, seems more politically motivated than rooted in the multifaceted realities of public health. Perhaps a more nuanced discussion, rather than a rhetorical sidestep, would better serve our collective goal of advancing health equity for all.
Reply
Alexandra Warren - 1989, 1996, 2001
This is incredibly disappointing. This is the university helping to roll back progress by decades as it relates to equity for people of diverse backgrounds. People fought and died to achieve some semblance of equity. Calling it what it is this is the University of Michigan supporting racism and white supremacy by this administration. I would’ve never been able to complete my three University of Michigan degrees had it not been for DEI/affirmative action support. Needless to say there are thousands and thousands of people who could say the same thing. These practices will just widen the gap between the haves, who are mostly white, and the have nots.
Reply
Gerald Rogan - 1968 (LSA), 1972 (Med)
Hi Alexandra. In what way we DEI/affirmative action necessary for your education at U of M?
Reply
David Treece - 1983; 1988
I agree with the comments expressing disappointment in abandoning DEI efforts, but I want to add that the University statements are false, misleading, illogical, and poorly argued. It’s pure political spin to sugarcoat what is happening here. The statement should have included a recognition of the dramatic threats against the university from the Trump administration and that the University response is a direct result of these threats. Abandoning DEI didn’t just come out of thin air. The statement only very obtusely refers to the new administration. Not enough. Put the blame where it belongs.
Reply
Joel Martin - 1978, 1993
Thank you for this comment. There is hardly a hint of the truth in the article. It is as cowardly as the decision itself.
Reply
Brenda Foley - 1997
I agree. This sudden decision is clearly a result of the administration’s threats against academic institutions and all the justification rings hollow. I can only hope that the work done for years to change culture and thinking towards greater diversity, equity, and inclusion cannot be undone in practice by rapid dismantling of official departments.
Reply
Greg Morgan - 1979
When did the University of Michigan start doing things because it was told to do so, instead of thinking for itself? This is not leadership. This is following. This is not worthy of the university’s heritage.
Reply
Kevin Lopar - 1978, 1982
The university has historically aligned policies and initiatives with the entities that are funding those changes and this has always been the foundation of American universities… going back to the Rockefeller era. Michigan is no different. While many misguided alum may feel that this is the biggest failure of the institution, we need only to point toward recent history to disprove that wild and misinformed allegation. Do we forget the inept and embarrassing tenure of Mary Sue Coleman? Have we turned a blind eye to the fact that UM was the last institution (public or private) to lift the COVID vaccine requirements for on-campus housing because they were threatened by Pfizer to lose their $50M research grant? And the president responsible for directing that financial fallout directly onto the backs of students who lost their entire semester of housing funds when that decision was made the day after housing contracts were due to be submitted? And what about the scandal with the former president? You’re all blinded by your woke ideology and white guilt to feel some responsibility for a complicated history that none of you seemingly payed much attention to as you matriculated through Ann Arbor. Perhaps a refresher course in history is the vitamin you need to begin to heal from the self-important, self-serving mind virus that’s infected you.
Michigan fell out of the top 10 public institutions in this country long ago, and this action, despite being chastised by so many of you, will be the first step in restoring its greatness. Whether you feel proud of your Alma Mater or not, history will reflect upon this moment as what elevated Michigan back to what has made it a beacon for intellectuals for so long. And finally, after decades of decay, the best ideas and policies to serve humanity can once again come from this university. HAIL Santa Ono, a great leader, and HAIL MICHIGAN… Champions for all mankind… not just the pitied few.
Reply
Brandon Lesner - 2021
Rolling back DEI is counterproductive for humanity. The entire idea is to bring diversity to the table when it comes to solving the problem of our future — global problems.
Your rant about “woke ideology” and “white guilt” is just parroting. The fact is that people start from different backgrounds, financial levels, and abilities, yet none of those should become setbacks. Many of us have been, and continue to be left behind by a society that favors and respects a very specific demographic above all.
I have a major physical disability and I wasn’t allowed to attend my own public school for years and that wasn’t the ’60s, it was the ’90s. The only way I’ve earned respect for my intelligence from others has been by them getting to know me virtually before meeting me in person. You say “woke” like a bad word, I say it as giving people a chance to show you who they are and what they bring to the table based on their words and actions, not skin color, religious background, economic status, or physical abilities.
You can’t erase what this country has done to folks like me and other minority groups. I mean we literally went to war with each over slavery. Segregation was written law only 60 years ago, and the atrocities committed against disabled people continue to this day.
UofM should be leading the way, not “following orders.” If the DEI program wasn’t working as intended, a redesign is more appropriate than abandonment. Universities are the place to teach people how to think critically, how to perform unbiased research and not just take the word of others. We are headed more toward fascism everyday. The small things are the scariest, humans are so easy to manipulate, especially without higher education. Takeovers of our national arts and science museums is the most alarming! When the arts are controlled, we no longer have free speech. Those behind the scenes moves will make these big moves, like killing DEI much more effective.
Reply
Stephen Bernhardt - 1981
We can change and adapt without breaking. We are already in a period of change that responds to economic need as opposed to all the faulty constructs of race and race-based decision making. Stay Blue.
Reply
William R. Landgraf - 1976; 1979
I wholeheartedly agree with all of the comments above! Shame on U of M Administration! We have invaluable expertise in, and associated with, Hutchins Hall. We should use that talent. Let us use one of Mr. Trump’s own guiding principles: “See you in Court!”
Reply
Brian Minning - 2003
Totally agree! See you in court would have been the best action here, not preemptive surrender.
Reply
Peter Johnston - 2000
Hail to the cowards!!
Reply
Richard Brouwer - 1962
Very disappointing and disturbing news. Principles no longer form the bedrock of this great institution. They crumble under the weight of the tyrant’s control. A “unionesque” show of strength would be more appropriate, namely, an alliance with our country’s other great universities. In effect, “Shut me (us) down? We all shut down”. Counter tyrannical strength with our combined strength and the support of the outraged American public.
Reply
Outraged Alum - 2011, 2015
I won’t forget this abject failure of moral leadership the next time the university comes seeking donations.
Reply
Michael Barton - 1979, 1982
How could you (Ono, et.al.) possibly say you are going to comply with federal executive orders and guidance? You have to know this is only an initial attack on the values of the university and the nation. You have made that first attack a success. You are an appeaser. You have to know what’s coming. You should have thought of the eternal stain on the University’s reputation caused by its capitulation to McCarthyism. You have chosen to resurrect and follow that
heritage instead of the decades of effort made in trying to atone.
Reply
John Kim - 2000
I am glad the university is now refocused on education and increasing financial aid. Diversity is important, but has been blown out of proportion. Asians have been hurt by DEI initiatives in college admissions and as a father of 2, I hope my children aren’t penalized for their culture. My kids work hard and my wife and I push them harder because we know they will be held to a higher standard than others because of DEI. I hope one day we can get past skin color and understand that diversity is bigger than skin deep.
Reply
Mark Tanase - 1991
Although it was a different form when my Japanese ancestry Dad attended in the 1960s to when my son (current student) applied and was warned that he would need better grades than his peers to have a chance, both were and are racism. I am glad that Michigan will no longer tolerate such racism for both prospective students but faculty, too.
Reply
Cristina Finch - 1995
I am extremely disappointed to see the University of Michigan back away from diversity, equity and inclusion programs. I add my voice to those calling on the U of M administration to change course and not “obey in advance”. Please reverse this short sighted horrible decision!
Reply
Jen Garant - 2006
I am struggling to reconcile this feeling of tremendous loss and betrayal…I feel betrayed by an institution that has been something I have loved, defended, and held in incredibly high esteem since I was 12 years old. The level of cowardice is something I never expected to experience in Ann Arbor. How regents and university leaders can say that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are core values and then without remorse or pause can erase and gut the very essence of those values is sickening and shameful. University leadership has failed our past, present, and future.
“You see what we are doing with the colleges and they are all bending and saying “Sir, thank you very much, we appreciate it.”” – DJT March 2025
“It looks like much of the playbook is intimidation, more so than actual substantiated legal findings,” said Michael Pillera, director of educational equity issues at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “I think all of this is designed as an attempt to intimidate all universities, not just the institutions under investigation.”
Reply
Amanda Mulder - 2009
Shame on Michigan. You can’t lead from a place of fear.
Reply
Marcy Mann - 1978
For the first time in 50 years, I am embarrassed to say I was/am a student/alumna of the University of Michigan. I repeat all sentiments of cowardice and disappointment.
Reply
Sheldon Starman - 1965
Even lip service to elimination of DEI programs is a shanda — a condition much worse and much more personal than mere shame. And beyond that, a statement that University policies will reflect “compliance with federal executive orders” is nearly a criminal neglect of the duties of policy makers. I will continue to support the University financially, but without the joy it has given me for the past 50 years.
Reply
Linda Gebric - 2001
What incredibly weak arguments for this disastrous change! I am truly disappointed and quite frankly ashamed to be a Michigan alum today.
Reply
Dennis O’Malley - 1978
This is an embarrassment and a capitulation of the highest order. The Trump administration will never be satisfied no matter how much you grovel, so get ready for more of the same.
Reply
David Stoll - 1974
Contrary to many above comments, I think that UM’s move away from DEI — or at least the extremes to which it was taken — is for the best. For a good explanation of the underlying issues, to which UM administrators were responding before all the shocking moves by the Trump administration, see the investigation published by the NYT Magazine: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/magazine/dei-university-michigan.html. I work with working-class 1st-generation students at another institution — too much of the DEI package does not serve their needs.
Reply
Lawrence Price - 1978, 1982
I strongly second the comments of Mr. Stoll. I was proud of the university’s efforts on DEI until I read the New York Times article to which he refers. Its findings were consistent with my observation of some efforts at the institution where I currently teach. The goals of DEI are laudable, even critical, but it seems clear that we have some way to go in terms of finding the right methods to reach those goals. Identitarianism, demonization of the other, dividing the world into oppressors and oppressed, intolerance of other viewpoints, and performative expressions of rectitude are not those methods. I encourage those who are vilifying the university to instead direct their ire toward a more appropriate target: the Trump administration.
Reply
Jim Gosnell - 1967, 1969
In my view David’s comment is spot on. Everyone who posted on this site ought to read the New York Times article he references. The subtitle of the article is: “A decade and a quarter of a billion dollars later, students and faculty are more frustrated than ever.” Could have provided a lot of scholarships to needy folks for that amount of money. Kudos to Michigan for recognizing when something isn’t working and making the correct business decision to shut it down, regardless of the politics.
Reply
Paul Messink - 1971
If the current (or should I now say “former”) DEI program was imperfect, it should have been improved, not abandoned. No social program is going to be perfect, nor will it perfectly help every student. But overall, DEI is still an important set of values.
If my arm is hurting, I don’t amputate it. I have it examined and treated appropriately. This is a bad, bad decision and bodes poorly for the direction of this university.
Reply
Diana Troik - 1972
The New York Times article cited is excellent as it describes how DEI programs became a business for Michigan and created a bureaucratic nightmare. Let us not forget that the practice of requiring prospective faculty members to write a DEI statement on how their research would foster DEI is a gross violation of academic freedom.
Reply
Micaela S - 2022
I will no longer be providing any financial support in the form of donations to the University of Michigan as a result of this nor will I be recommending this institution to students for higher education.
Reply
Richard Oaburn - 1978
Now that the waste on DEI has stopped, I will begin my donations to the university again. The money is better allocated to the students and Quality education.
Reply
Marc Baker
The groupthink of the comments is troubling. DEI is fundamentally racist and sacrifices the primacy of merit by elevating social engineering and racial balancing as the primary goal. This is unacceptable and unconstitutional. It is a shame the University had to be threatened with loss of federal funds to do this. This betrays the deteriorating state of higher education in the US especially at elite colleges like UMich. Did parents sit in on their kids’ lectures during Covid? The level of instruction was embarrassing and unacceptable. Who is going to rid the curriculum of these race-based ideas?
Reply
Sacha Coupet - 1991
The linguistic weaponization of meritocracy has NOTHING to do with actual merit. People who TRULY advocate for a meritocracy understand that a meritocracy is not possible without equal opportunity. Full stop. This nation’s history is replete with incontrovertible evidence that equal opportunity has never existed.
The idea that DEI is antithetical to a meritocracy is a nonsensical notion that is merely further proof of the continued need for such education.
Reply
Gerald Rogan - 1968 (LSA-philosophy) 1972 (Med)
Hi Sacha. My friend Margot Kaufman, who died at age 96 last year, was refused entry into Columbia Medical School in the 1950s because she was Jewish. She told me Columbia’s Jewish quota had been filled. Had Columbia not had a quota, Margot may have become a physician instead of a Professor of French at U.C. Davis.
The plans U Mich. will employ to replace DEI criteria would seem to accomplish the same goal in a more equitable manner than imposing DEI criteria, and should help mitigate the lack of equal opportunity which Margot endured.
Reply
PAUL FUCHS - 1974,1978
TRUTH.
Reply
Sacha Coupet
Perhaps there is shared agreement that overt quotas are an invitation to question whether meritocracy has been abandoned in the effort to seek diversity. However, the more vexing challenge is developing a shared understanding of the degree to which the metrics of “merit” are themselves products of longstanding inequities and bias. We are hopelessly divided in recognizing the legacy of historical discrimination and the role that both overt and unconscious bias play in limiting opportunities. Some (presumably those celebrating the dismantling of programs meant to remedy the effects of discrimination) believe racial (and other) bias(es) to be a relic of the past or an aberrant exception, but the data tells us otherwise. “TRUTH” says Paul. The truth is that the effects of historical discrimination (against women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, etc.) resound to this day, measured in every possible metric (health, education, wealth, housing, employment, etc.). Failure to appreciate the generational effects of discrimination and bias doesn’t make them any less impactful, it just makes folks who deny those facts appear intentionally ill informed (to put it charitably). And yet, I am persuaded by the words of Dr. Arin Reeves, a thought leader in the area of leadership development, and her call to continue the actual work, even without the support of offices, terms and titles explicitly aimed at DEI. In speaking on the anti-DEI rhetoric she says: “The pitting of equity and inclusion against meritocracy is one of the oldest linguistic weapons in human history because human beings have an innate need to understand social structures and interactions from the perspective of “who deserves what.” This idea of “deserving” underlies so much of what we will accept or reject in our individual and social lives, from historical rationalizations for slavery to modern arguments about tax policy. If we are persuaded to believe that someone deserves something, we will live with it even if it is harmful to us. But, if we can be persuaded to believe that someone doesn’t deserve something, our brains get hijacked into feeling like we need to fight for our survival, fight for what is ours because someone else has taken it from us without deserving it. The not-so-subtle psychology of calling someone a “DEI Hire” is a clarion call to the threat receptors in the brain that someone has something they do not deserve. The clarion call will not successfully activate the threat receptors in all brains; each person’s life experiences and beliefs will create a variance in who feels threatened by the message and who doesn’t. But, for people who heed the clarion call that “there are people who have something they don’t deserve,” the activation of their threat response is an emotional one rooted in their survival instincts, not a rational one rooted in an intellectual understanding of meritocracy or the importance of equity for a meritocracy to work. The use of meritocracy as a linguistic weapon cannot be neutralized by intellectual arguments or data. We cannot fight emotional activation with rational analysis. It’s the equivalent of saying “calm down” to someone who is emotionally upset. Not only does “calm down” not calm someone down, but it usually makes them even more upset. We are currently experiencing the extreme linguistic weaponization of meritocracy, and it is painful and frustrating to experience. We can fight back, but the fight isn’t in arguing about whether something is a meritocracy or not. The fight is in doing the work necessary to move our organizations slowly but surely in the direction of becoming meritocracies. And, yes, unfortunately, that means that we may need to do that without using the linguistic triggers of diversity, equity, and inclusion. To do this work, we must identify where inequity of opportunity resides in our systems and dismantle the inequity as subtly and quietly as possible.”
Reply
Janet Bobby - 1960
I agree with your comment regarding the University of Michigan moving from DEI. People must understand that Equity and Equality are far different concepts.
Reply
Kevin Hughes - 1990
Agree with all of the other commenters. How dare you present this capitulation to a fascist bully as “important changes” without acknowledging the deep disgrace in the University’s actions?
Reply
Christopher LaFond - 2004, 2006
This is deeply disappointing. Michigan used to be a bastion of free speech and progressive ideals. Between this decision and the aggressive prosecution of peaceful protesters, the culture of the Wolverine has lost its way.
Reply
David Howe - 64, 65
As I read the comments, I am struck by the lack of diversity in them. In a small effort to get back to equilibrium, let me express support for your recent effort to provide reality of opportunity rather than equity in outcome.
Reply
Joel Martin - ‘78, ‘93
I understand why Michigan may have had to cave in the end, but to do so without even a whimper is shameful and cowardly. This is not the university I loved for its independence and devotion to the betterment of all. An important place in my heart is now a void.
Reply
Catherine Biondi - 1998
As a proud Michigan alum, I want you to know that I’m absolutely furious at, and ashamed of, my alma mater’s capitulation to the trump regime. I’m done with you all.
Reply
Anna Parker - 2009, 2013
Santo Ono must resign.
Instead of standing for justice, he is following Columbia University’s disgraceful example—capitulating to autocrats. This is the *opposite* of what a leading global university should do.
It breaks my heart to see my alma mater abandon the world’s most marginalized communities—even criminalizing those who speak out against fascist atrocities. I was once proud to be a Michigan Wolverine, but no longer.
The University of Michigan claims to be “Leaders and Best,” but in recent years, it has revealed itself to prioritize leadership in two areas: 1) enabling sexual misconduct in the highest halls of leadership, and 2) upholding genocide and oppression. This isn’t leadership. It’s cowardice and it must end now.
Shame on this institution. Shame on Santo Ono.
Reply
Maria Vega - 1997
An appropriate response should be a boycott of all revenue generating Michigan apparel, gear, and events. If Michigan refuses to defend and support its diverse students and faculty and its principles, then those with principles should not support Michigan. If they are afraid of losing revenue, then revenue is where opponents of this cowardly decision should aim.
I can only hope students at Michigan will be braver than the Michigan administration.
Reply
Rob Ahrens - 1992
Do you honestly think that with these DEI changes the Trump administration is now done and happy with the University of Michigan? If history is any indicator, this is just their first step and they will soon be back with further demands. What is Michigan’s Red Line? At what point will we put you foot down and stand our ground?
Reply
Meredith O’Harris - 2016
As a very proud graduate of Michigan Law, one particular area of pride was learning/is sharing how Michigan Law stood alone and tall before our nation to defend its affirmative action program—and won. It resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court landmark case still taught today.
I cannot reconcile this news against that legacy.
Reply
Dave Tratt - 1982
I wonder how many of the commenters actually know how effective the current DEI policies have (or have not) been. I applaud, for whatever motivation, the administration for evaluating program effectiveness and making changes they determine will result in improvements. Let’s give the administration credit for attempting to balance resources with outcomes, and not overreact because the term DEI goes away. Go Blue!
Reply
Michelle B - 2009
I am beyond disappointed at U of M’s decision to end DEI initiatives. I was always a proud alumna and supportive of U of M. This is disgraceful and does not represent the “leaders and best” that I came to know during my time there. I thought U of M would always be a strong bulwark against tyranny and protect its students’ rights and freedoms. My time on campus was spent forging connections with students and faculty of all different backgrounds and pushing for social justice in our community and larger. I am saddened and dismayed by this change and I can only hope that U of M redirects itself before permanently tarnishing its reputation as a university.
Reply
David Marks - 2000
Thank you U of M for recognizing the foolishness of these programs. You’ll get a lot of flack for the “unfairness” of this, but merit and qualifications should always be the reason placement and advancement occurs. It is by merit, skill, and ability U of M shall thrive, not on color, gender, or other categories that have zero to do with real achievement. Achievement is earned…not given!
Reply
Amy Kelly Lauer - MBA ‘91
Predictable and profoundly disappointing move to eliminate Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging work, Big Blue. I applaud expanding resources to support students, and am dismayed to read DEIB no longer are values which professors have to commit to. I will revoke my lifetime donation on Monday.
Reply
Roger Lauricella - 1980 BSEE
I’m very happy Michigan is dialing back DEI and yes so many of you all posting won’t like that I say that. Focus on raising up with services and help those who need it regardless of background. Focus on hiring the leaders and best regardless of race, gender, etc. Build a community with students and faculty that are the leaders and best based on earned merit while again raising up those from underserved communities who need help to become successful. Prioritizing success based on DEI measures does not help those who need the lift up it only perpetuates an extreme bias designed to right perceived or existent historical wrongs. Focus on building skills in all with help as needed based on said need and then in the future all will be raised up.
Reply
Sacha Coupet - 1991
It’s hard not to see this as anything other than anticipatory capitulation to an autocratic regime that is acting beyond the scope of law. Rather than lean into its professed core values, university leadership has elected to give an air of credibility to this administration’s claims that DEI is to blame for all of society’s ills. What is even worse is that the august body of research supporting the widespread benefits of diversity — and an understanding of the deeply rooted, systemic forces that generate persistent economic and social inequities — comes from U of M researchers and scholars!! Because we KNOW better, we should, indeed, DO better… both as an institution that and as people. Surely, this cannot be what U of M means when it claims to be “leaders and best??” I’m beyond disappointed that my alma mater has chosen to take part in its own demise. Failure to embrace and champion your own mission in the face of such challenges reveals how little it and the legacy of leadership meant to begin with.
Reply
David Marks - 2000
Hail to the VICTORS! Victory is earned, not given!!
Reply
JC Flaherty - 2006; 2009
For as long as I can remember, I’ve kept a bookmark of the Grutter decision to turn back to as a reminder of why we fight. As Justice O’Connor held, we fight for the “compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” While this ruling has been carved away in the years since, I have always been proud that our university recognized the value in championing diversity at the highest levels when DEI efforts were drawn into question. With this announcement, I ask who have we become? Less than a generation ago the Court recognized that “universities … represent the training ground for a large number of the Nation’s leaders, the path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.” Are we no longer training leaders?
Reply
Jo Shaw - 1950
My first thought was that refusal by me and others to give money to our school while they were spending millions on DEI had been successful. Of course it was the federal government, with our money, who cut you off. I am all for diversity if it is earned, and it looks like the money will be directed to help those who need it. The next thing you and the government need to do is remove all questions about race, gender and national origin from applications. It is divisive.
Reply
Mark Tanase - 1991
I stopped giving some time ago and was resigned to never giving again in the future when M doubled down on DEI over the last couple of years. I wish it had been for a refusal to continue to have institutional racist policies that DEI was abandoned rather than because of the current administration but I am glad to see the end of it.
Reply
K Lopez - 2015
Not surprising at all. As a graduate student there I saw first hand how this institution upholds white supremacy, especially the tenure-track faculty and senior leadership. They have so much power in terms of voting rights to change policies and practices and they choose to use their power to promote white supremacy to be benefit themselves. Sounds like now they’re directing their efforts to help students accept and cope their existence in a racist institution. Must be taking that from the Psychology Department’s curriculum.
Reply
Manuel Brown - 1968 1977
It’s hard to disagree with most of the comments the article. However, I have two basic thoughts.
1. It is better to live today and prepare to fight in the future. The midterm election may well change the balance of power in Washington. The next presidential election is critical. Rather than bemoan the loss of DEI, start working immediately for the future.
2. DEI are just initials. Assure that the concepts remain important. And start using the resources for the future of our university.
Reply
ELLEN WANG - 1998
U of M is where I gained my political education. I was excited to bring my son who is a junior in high school for a college tour but now I’m thinking this might not be a good fit for him after all.
Reply
Irva Faber-Bermudez - 1972
This article’s attempt to spin the University’s decision to capitulate to the Trump administration’s demands has been unsuccessful and disappointing at best. My husband, sister-in-law, my son and I are all University of Michigan alumni. Our decisions to attend Michigan were based in no small part on its success in fostering and protecting a diverse, inclusive and equitable educational community. Trump’s threats against the University, and his administration’s efforts to stir fear and intimidation are clear. Federal funding is of course vital to achievement of Michigan’s goals. But was there work to resist and refuse to allow the normalization of prejudice and bigotry? This unprecedented moment in our history requires strength, tremendous courage and commitment to values. This article and the University’s decision to bow to authoritarianism is shameful.
Reply
Roy Pointer - 1971
This is truly embarrassing. As an old white guy, I have always been proud to say that I attended and received my degree from the U of M. I learned a lot because of the diversity while I was there. If the university is no longer interested in diversity, equity and inclusion, what is it interested in doing. I will seriously reconsider how I support the U of M in the future.
Reply
David Levy - 1979 (law)
These changes were long overdue. It’s unfortunate that they required outside pressure from the federal government, but it was obvious that U/M, like most other elite American universities, was not going to clean its own house. Since 2016, the university has spent more than a quarter billion dollars on DEI. The results have been disastrous. They have included a toxic cancel culture and a wave of on-campus Jew-baiting, as well as heavy-handed discrimination against Asian applicants. https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/10/the-university-of-michigan-went-all-in-on-dei-the-results-were-disastrous/; https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/the-university-of-michigans-cancel-culture-problem-it-has-real-consequences/; https://www.nationalreview.com/news/universities-failed-to-protect-students-from-antisemitic-harassment-during-protests-education-department-finds/. Let’s hope that the recently-announced changes are the beginning of real reform, and not just window dressing designed to placate the federal government.
Reply
Kathryn Walker - 1997
I vehemently disagree with your statement. I am in no way antisemistic and have many Jewish friends whom I dearly love. Yet our government’s support for Israel’s genocide in Palestine is totally unjust. To weaponize my love for my Jewish friends, for you to think I would wish ill on anyone, is deeply disturbing to me as I would never. Yet that is how I understand your position and I find it deeply offensive. I believe in God and that God loves everyone. No one is deserving of such horrible punishment. Free Palestine 🇵🇸
Reply
Kathryn Walker - 1997
I couldn’t disagree with you more, but I wish you peace nonetheless
Reply
William White - 2006
Well said David. It’s good to see that not all of the UMich alumni writing here are in thrall to such destructive leftist ideologies.
Reply
John Roberts - 2003
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Reply
David Snead, PhD - 1970 MA, 1984 PhD
I have always been proud of The Univ of Mich in its efforts to support DEI as well as Affirmative action and just hope and pray we will find other ways to achieve the same goals.
Reply
Joe Payne - 2017
Are you going to start turning students over to the fascist state now too?
Michigan has continued to disappoint at every opportunity. Putting this article at the top of an email largely featuring research news sure was a decision.
Reply
Stacy Slater - 2010
Cowards
Reply
A K - 2013
So we are now abandoning one of our core values? There is no michigan difference without diversity, equity and inclusion. We all know this is all about money. I am 100% in favor of using our alumni donations and endowment to support loss of federal funding. It’s not too late to change our decision, let’s keep DEI in place.
Reply
Michael Lovato - 2003
Pretty disgusting appeasement. Not very proud to be a wolverine today.
Reply
Bryan Mendez - 1997
Compliance with the illegal anti-diversity executive orders is complicity with the white-supremacy that informs them. Shame on you, U of M.
Reply
Laurel Park - 1985, 1988, 2007
“The Office of the General Counsel will initiate an expedited review to ensure all policies, programs, and practices comply with federal law and guidance.”
Mr. Bleiler, would you please specify exactly which federal law(s)?
Reply
Sharon DeLano - 1966
I echo the above comments. I understand your the difficult position universities are in with the current administration, but disappointing that no one is stron and stands up
Reply
Clark McCain - 1996
As a maize and blue person, I warmly welcome this wise decision. Perhaps it was hastened by a ham-handed and possibly authoritarian (but not fascist for those that overslept Poli Sci classes at U-M) administration. But even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.
I attended the Michigan Business School back when we were the leaders and best — a program ranked top five in the nation. My first memory of it was when my section of 60 classmates was gathered together to learn our school fight song which we sang in unison even before we had properly met one another. Over two years we bonded together, a collection of people from many different backgrounds, experiences and cultures. Classmates from China, India, Russia, the Philippines— even Ohio. This top flight program was known for its innovative curriculum and excellence in building teamwork competencies into its graduates.
Sometime since then the University, like many others and certain other parts of society began to focus intently on what makes us different from one another rather than on our common purpose and ability to work across differences. U-M developed the largest such administrative program in academia based on the belief that our differences – however real or imagined – are most important. It is good to see that bad idea being conquered.
Perhaps we must turn in this moment to our recently vanquished Wolverine Men’s Basketball team who quickly came together from many distant points to become a championship squad. We can be leaders and best again if we look closely for our common humanity, learn how to work as one and embrace the WE. When we do so those who look to Michigan will again say, Hail to the Victors!
Reply
Ramona B - 1985, 2011
Bad move by any institute of higher learning.
DEI when done properly, strengthens meritocracy.
The key is to improve the DEI programs, not throw them out. As for Ono, he doesn’t matter. He is merely the puppet of billionaire donors, just as whoever the US President happens to be. And the billionaire class has been seeking to both control and undermine education for decades. This is just another step in the process.
Reply
Michael Zick - 1997
The lack of “diversity” in the comments is telling. Two wrongs don’t make a right. You can’t fix past racism with more racism. We have a national holiday now for MLK Jr. Read his words again “”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. It seems the Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected a lot of people. Try and think rationally and realize the progressive ideals are flawed in a lot of ways.
Reply
Peter Anderson - 2005
We can’t be “leaders and best” if we bow to fascist blackmail. Change the slogan to “followers and average.”
Reply
Camron Amin
For those of us still working to make our campuses more welcoming to all, more supportive of the pluralism of the university community (and that of society as a whole) and more committed to fairness in developing and administering policies and practices, this is a challenging time. We fear the loss of academic freedom for ourselves and our students. We fear the loss of reputation for the institution and our livelihood to insatiable ideological extremism. We even fear state-tolerated vigilante violence and selective, predatory enforcement of unconstitutional policies. But, we also take courage from our colleagues and students. We need all UM stakeholders to remind our leadership and each other of what is at stake: a free society in which everyone has a genuine opportunity to learn and prosper. There is no merit in rationing opportunity and hiding our failure with a bumper sticker that says “Leaders and Best.”
Reply
Maya Hunt - 2023
This is exactly why I left. You are not worth my time. You are a detriment to academic progress.
Reply
ChecksAnd Balances
Stop bending the knee to Krasnov the illegitimate and the Nazi who rigged the election for him. The entire administration is doing Putin’s bidding to dismantle our society and and government. You should be calling for their removal – not the removal of DEI programs.
Reply
Martin Hale - 22
I agree with actions to bring true equality to admissions and hiring. It would appear to me that if there is a disparity in readiness or grades/GPA for various minority groups than the solution is much deeper than lowering standards for admission or requiring quotas for certain groups. Perhaps the solution is found in the home, expectation setting, values, etc. I think having race or any other cultural based requirements for admission is by definition, inherently racist.
Reply
Thia L. - 2002
Shame on you, I know where my money WON’T be going now.
Reply
Sara Cohen - 2001
This is so deeply disappointing and dangerous. As those of us looking to find the true leaders who will protect the equity gains of the last half century against this desperate last-gasp backlash, UM just disappeared from the field. Instead, it’s modeling capitulation to authoritarianism in the most dangerous form; adopting and amplifying the language and distorted justifications of those very authoritarians.
Reply
Robert Levine - 1989
If I squint really hard it appears that they have reassigned DEI initiatives throughout the university and stopped calling it DEI. What I’d really like to see is for someone to stand up and defend DEI for what it is. An effort to stop hiring unqualified white men (I’m looking at you Pete Hegseth).
Here’s a thought. What if all the Big Ten schools spoke in unison and said, “F you Trump regime”. We are keeping DEI as it is and we are proud of it. There is safety in numbers.
I hope every white student on campus floods the Diag in protest. Sadly, it is unsafe for their non-white brothers, sisters and siblings to join them. For a school that claims to be the “leaders and best”, how about doing some leading!!!
Reply
Joan Snyder - 1984 (law)
I am very, very disappointed in these policy changes. But, truly, my concerns about U of M policies are dwarfed by my concerns about the current path of our beloved country. In my mind Michigan is (still is) a superb academic institution that works hard to provide opportunities to as many as it can and takes seriously its mandate to provide for the top notch education of Michiganders, making it the top public educational institution in the nation and among the top overall. For those on this chain who do not know this fact, the entire University ceased to apply affirmative action in admission decisions when Michigan voters passed Proposal 2 in 2006, which mandated that step. However, Michigan has always recognized that part of its superb education has come from the diversity of its student body, faculty and the ideas that float around in the classroom and on the campus. It has celebrated that diversity and worked to promote it. I’m a lawyer, so I can understand why the University is choosing to comply with existing law. However, I strongly encourage the University to join with other institutions in challenging these orders in courts and doing the very important work of protecting the legal right to treat diversity, equity and inclusion as valid educational objectives, for the sake of the University and our country. I will continue to support U of M because I believe in it, but I will try to determine how to do that in a way that advances my belief that we are all better when surrounded by a diversity of people and ideas.
Reply
Calvin Lee - 1993
I am writing to express my profound disappointment with the University of Michigan’s recent decision to terminate all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs—a move that appears to represent a capitulation to the divisive politics of the Trump era. As an alumnus who once witnessed and benefited from the bold, principled leadership of the late 1980s and early 1990s—a time when our university was a beacon of courage against oppressive ideologies—I find this decision both alarming and disheartening.
As a California attorney, I am required to engage in mandatory training on implicit bias and to implement robust mechanisms designed to prevent unfair discrimination. In stark contrast to the University of Michigan’s actions, the California Bar continues to uphold and even strengthen its commitment to these essential principles. It is troubling to see an institution with such a storied legacy of leadership and innovation abandon these values at a time when they are most needed.
The leaders I remember from my time at the university were unyielding in their defense of academic freedom and social justice, refusing to bow to the pressures of a fascist regime. Their example set a high standard for what a great institution should be—courageous, inclusive, and steadfast in the face of political pressure. Regrettably, I am left to wonder if the current leadership still upholds that legacy.
I urge you to reconsider this decision. The commitment to DEI is not merely a political statement but a foundational element of a truly inclusive and forward-thinking academic community. Reinstating these programs would not only honor the legacy of those great leaders from the past but also reaffirm the university’s dedication to fostering an environment where all individuals are valued and respected.
CJ Lee
Reply
Judi Glamb - 1981
I understand the wealth of comments, the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the anger and outrage over not taking a stand. Let the University remain at the forefront and continue to rise by embracing this responsibility—without relying on past government-imposed regulations. Hold them accountable for upholding the true principles of DEI while also focusing on higher education and maintaining a high standard in research and science (a battle in itself).
Reply
Kathryn Walker (née McCollough) - 1997
I am disgusted by the actions of my alma mater. I am appalled that the University is caving to fascism. Is my degree to be worthless? Does the University not believe that all men are created equal? That Palestinian, Congolese, Sudanese, Venezuelan, or any oppressed lives are somehow less worthy than those of white men? Any mother loves all her children, as the Earth does all Her children. Yet we exalt those who rape, pillage, and destroy the Earth and the most oppressed of her children. The narcissistic victimhood of the Trump administration has long exceeded the bounds to which it should be entitled deference in terms of ethics. They govern solely out of fear and the power of the military police state and the fear of poverty and homelessness that pervades capitalist society. Tom Waite’s’ character in The Fisher King, as a disabled homeless Vietnam veteran, told us he operated as a stop sign, the sight of whom is so feared that the masses continue to obey the master. These unjust orders from the Trump administration should not be obeyed! These children must be held accountable. Who will defend us if not our best minds and poets? Certainly not the evil army of guns and bombs. The military industrial complex must be abolished. How can a student learn from a cowardly teacher? How can the mind thrive in such a stifling environment? Free Palestine!
Reply
Juliana Perez - 2011
This announcement came as such a disappointment to me. In times when the government is moving in this dangerous direction, we need institutions to stand up for what’s right. This decision isn’t it. I expected more from my university. At least encouraging to see the amount of comments criticizing this decision.
Reply
Brandon Lesner - 2021
“Just following orders”
Reply
Katie T - 2018
This is heartbreaking and short-sighted. I am deeply disturbed by the leadership’s inability to listen to the students, staff, and U of M community. I am ashamed to be affiliated with the University now.
Additionally, the idea of a “personalized AI assistant” is a joke— why do that instead of focusing on community-based resources, programming, and connection opportunities?
What a dark time to be a Wolverine.
Reply
Mark Tanase - 1991
I would have preferred that Michigan came to its own conclusion (rather than as a way to “navigate the implications of the federal directives”) as to the morality of judging individuals as individuals instead of individuals only vis a vis certain groups defined by unchosen characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity etc. However, I am still very pleased for all those who would have been blatantly discriminated against by systematic DEI programs that this will no longer be tolerated.
May those who are best qualified to perform as students and faculty – regardless of unchosen characteristics – be chosen to participate at this great university.
Reply
Chas HR - 1993
Please focus the university’s activities on excellence. If you want to help poor people, rein in your costs, get rid of excess people doing non-value-added, non-education-enhancing work, lower your tuition, and then start giving lots of scholarships to low-income, high-achieving students. But first…your costs. It’s an outrage how much the cost of higher education has gone up in the last 20+ years. ut the reasons are clear. Overstaffing on non-educational related activities. Also, you and many other universities rely on subsidized student loans to your “customers” (the students), and do little to nothing to keep your costs down. So your customers (i.e., the students) are shackled with high debt, and you walk away richer for it. Shame on you. Cut your costs, and reward excellence. Operate like a real business.
Reply
Vern Peterson - 1991, 1994
Highly disappointed in UM Administration, kowtowing to a Convicted Felon and in my opinion as a Veteran, a coward.
Please do not send me any requests for funds in the future?
Reply
Theodore Trost - 1976
I recently celebrated “Giving Blueday” by designating a modest sum to the University’s DEI program. A day or so after that donation was tendered, this cancellation was announced. Was my pledge of support accepted under false pretenses?
Reply
Audra Rance - 1995
As an alum of this institution, I am deeply disappointed by the University of Michigan’s cowardly decision to dismantle its DEI office and initiatives without providing any real plan or reassurance for how they will continue to support students of all backgrounds, identities, and experiences. This move doesn’t just eliminate resources—it sends a clear message that inclusion, equity, and progress are no longer priorities. We are not moving forward; we are sliding backwards, erasing the work of so many who fought to make education accessible, safe, and empowering for everyone. What message are we sending to current and future students when we walk away from the hard work of building belonging? Shame on you, U of M, for contributing to a culture of division, silence, and exclusion when we need leadership and courage the most.
Reply
Shelley Ettinger - 1976/99
Shame shame shame. Disgusting capitulation to fascism. I was always proud to have been at U of M during, and done support work for, the second BAM strike. I was there when the great Jim Toy led the office for lgbtq students (don’t remember its exact name) which meant so much to me when I came out of the closet while living in East Quad in 1974. Now I couldn’t be more appalled and disgusted. Of course it should come as no surprise since the university, with the help of the courts, has been chipping away at any semblance of affirmative action for decades now. It was never a progressive institution but was forced to move forward by militant students organizing. That’s got to happen again now, in a huge way, if there’s to be any hope. Meanwhile, next I expect to see in the news that the university administration is cooperating with ICE in rounding up international students who support the Palestinian struggle. Disgusting disgusting disgusting. I wish I’d ever been able to afford to donate money so that now I could now stop doing so.
Reply
Andy Daugavietis - 1969
Wow! It’s about time that common sense may return to Big Blue. DEI (Division, Exclusion, Intolerance) which is how this philosophy was practiced now may be eliminated. Give everyone equal opportunity. Listen to everyone. And discuss or debate the differences in a civilized forum.
Reply
Jack Miller - 1970
Reasonable people can — and certainly do — disagree on the merits and methodology of DEI initiatives. This is not primarily about that: it is, first and foremost, about choosing whether to surrender to those trying to turn our government into an autocracy.
Reply
Marsi Darwin - 1948
I thank the universe that my father is not alive to see this. Son of a bricklayer and a seamstress, he attended U of M on the G.I. bill and went on to earn a doctorate at U.T. He was a fervent believer in diversity, equity and inclusion and a warrior for equal rights for all, and opportunity based on merit, not skin color or economic status. He would be so deeply ashamed of his alma mater, of which he had once been so proud. So I am ashamed for him, and for anyone else with principles, that this school could not stand with courage against an ignorant tyrant.
Reply
David Barbour - '62
EXTREMELY disappointing! Michigan just rolled over. Clearly, it is all about the money. But, of course, what else should I expect from the University that threw its professors under the Red Scare bus in the 1950s?
Reply
Ericka K - 1989, 1993
Michigan is no longer willing to stand up for diversity? No longer willing to stand up for equity? No longer willing to stand up for inclusion? We can have discussions about how best to do that, but to utterly capitulate to political pressure to the extent that the University is no longer proud to espouse these values makes me embarrassed to claim my affiliations. Diversity, equity, and inclusion do not come naturally. They only happen if you fight for them. You can’t be the Victors if you don’t fight.
Reply
Laurie Riester - 1978
First, kudos to all who are speaking their minds on this topic.
In a million years, I never would have imagined how easily institutions of higher learning, law firms, businesses, politicians and citizens would bend the knee to a fascist regime. And for what? Money? Prestige? Influence? How can U of M not recognize that instead of preserving the integrity of the university, they have sullied its reputation?
For 47 years I have been a proud alumna. After this decision, I will no longer be able to speak of my alma mater with pride.
Shame on the leadership of the once admirable U of M.
Reply
Ben Rothacker - 2014
Absolute shameful cowardice. If our organizations will not stand up for what is right, what is the point of their existence? It is your highest purpose as an educational institution to promote learning for all, without exception or limitation, and I fear you are choosing no longer to try.
You may argue that this is just a public pivot to weather a temporary storm, but what is spoken publicly becomes accepted truth. And the accepted truth you are supporting is that education for all is now less important. With respect, how dare you?
Reply
Mike Mullett - 1966, 1973
I am much more than disappointed; I am disgusted and devastated by this craven capitulation to the MAGA dogma and Mafia tactics of faux President DJT and his DOGE dogsbodies. For me, these actions dishonor and demean the University of Michigan, what it has meant to me since I was 18 years old, and the principles for which it has heretofore stood around the world. My heart is broken, my soul is seared by this disgraceful display of complicity in unconscionable, unlawful and unconstitutional actions by the Executive Producer, Casting Director and Star of a reality TV show in which he has cast himself and then plays the Anti-President of the United States of America, in violation of the Presidential Oath of Office and the values which have guided this great Nation of ours over centuries “to form a more perfect Union” by learning from its mistakes of the past and redeeming itself by correcting them in the future. For those time-honored values of that great Nation, I have stood ready to stand, to fight and, if need be, to die since I was quite young — and I am not about to change now that I am growing old. For the same reason, I have stood since I was eighteen years old to sing in proud unison Hail to the Victors — Valiant, Stalwart, Heroic and United in the service of those same time-honored values which have made the University of Michigan great. So, I call on the Leaders and Best of my University, our University to Be True to the Maize and Blue and to stand and to fight for the time-honored values which have made both our Nation and our University great . GO BLUE !!! GO RED, WHITE AND BLUE!!!
Reply
John Wilfred Cwikiel - 1987, 1990
I am incredibly disappointed in the direction taken by President Santa J. Ono et al. in response to the autocratic efforts to reshape higher education by the Trump Administration. This is not the time for capitulation by the world’s finest institution. As a middle class white kid from rural Michigan going off to University in the 1980s, some of my most important “learning” experiences at college and grad school came from interacting and building relationships from folks different from me. As a graduate student in the School of Natural Resources (now SEAS), I served as a student representative on a committee to recruit underrepresented students. I felt then, and feel now, that this was important work. It literally turns my stomach to see President Ono et al. turn their backs on Michigan’s decades-long commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. This is the time for leadership and moral clarity. Are we not “Leaders and Best”?
Reply
Paul Jacokes - 1973
I can’t express how disappointted I am in the University’s capitulation to this petty little man. The current potus is a cowardly, racist, fascist bully. Giving in to his racist demands is not what I expect from this University. I will have to give a lot of thought to any future donations. It does no good to eliminate these programs. DEI initiatives help make our community better. Up to now, I thought President Ono was doing a pretty good job, but his lack of back bone in this case has made me reassess his work.
Reply
Saroj Misra - 1994
Add my voice to the (long) list of individuals who believed our alma mater would take a more nuanced and strong approach to resisting the temptation to acquiesce to demands that are neither lawful nor in line with the core values of our institution. To simply eliminate DEI efforts as a unit demonstrates a surprising lack of understanding that these are distinct ideologies that have wide-reaching effects in almost every aspect of what the University cares about. Would we be so quick to eliminate efforts if the words being co-opted were “Equality”, “Justice,” or “Peace”? Clearly, that is a ridiculous idea – and so is this. As an academic leader in this country (and the world), I would hope that we would seek to continue to educate others on what these words mean and not simply accept that some of our leaders in this country have come up with their definitions which serve their own purposes – that is, after all, what higher institutions of education are supposed to do, right?
I realize my voice is one amongst many, but I must speak with it in defense of the great history, tradition, and value my College has had for over 100 years for these principles. Do not allow temporary currents to redirect our ship from it’s North Star (sorry, I was an English Language & lit major, lol). Please keep working to find ways to support what we have an ethical, historical and moral obligation to support.
Reply
Leslie Riester - 1974, 1990
In case no one has shared this information yet, I recommend sending an email to the Regents’ @umich.edu addresses, which can be found at https://regents.umich.edu/regents/. I am astounded at how quickly Michigan caved, and the lack of creative thinking around alternative sources of funds to replace federal funding, I’m also worried that Michigan will not protect its international students who face being kidnapped by ICE. I have lost all respect for U of M leadership, and have no faith in their willingness to resist fascism and the delusions of the Heritage Foundation. I will no longer recommend U of M to my young friends contemplating college and certainly will not make donations. “Go Blue” has become the color of cowardice.
Reply
KC Sunshine - '80, '94
This has been a long time coming, but better late than never.
DEI (which is really just affirmative action in a slick new party dress) is extremely unpopular in Michigan, as well as the rest of the county. This is one of those “80/20” issues that once again the left is on the wrong side of. However, this moment is not something just created by the Trump administration, it has been a long time in the making.
The first recent major indication of how unpopular DEI/affirmative action is can be traced back to 2006, when Proposition 2 banning the use of affirmative action in Michigan was passed by a wide margin. Notably, at the time the university basically gave the middle finger to the people of Michigan and kept affirmative action in place despite the will of the voters. I know because I was there at the time. The HR web pages still proudly proclaimed the U as an “equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.” People were not at all happy with this, but it was still the case as recently as ~2020.
Speaking of 2020, another thing happened: COVID-19. At the insistence of the teachers’ unions, schools were closed and classes went online, allowing parents to look over their children’s shoulders in real time to observe what was being taught. Parents recoiled in horror at what they witnessed, and opposition to DEI rapidly increased.
Another blow came in June of 2023, when the SCOTUS ruled that affirmative action in academia is unconstitutional; many legal scholars believe that this applies to all public entities, not just academia. But then came October 7, 2023.
After the attack on Israel by Hamas on 10/7/23, the dysfunction in academia became apparent to an even wider audience, and since the U of M was one of the main institutions leading the charge on all things DEI, it naturally became a lightning rod for the media, which up to that point had mostly ignored the problems in American academia as they pertain to racial-, ethnic- and sex-based discrimination. With the MSM no longer ignoring these problems, the opposition to DEI went into hyperdrive, Trump’s message connected with many voters, the Democrats went down in spectacular fashion, and here we are. The U of M, and academia in general, have nobody but themselves to blame for this.
Reply
Mark Tanase - 1991
Just a shame that it took the current administration to bring about this change when it has been very long overdue. Saying you are against DEI does not mean you are against diversity. DEI in practice is institutionalised racism and it was shameful with M doubled down on it over the past couple of years.
Good riddance.
Reply
Nancy Harvey - 1992, 1995 & 1995
Please add me to the long list of alumni who are deeply dissatisfied with this decision. We are no longer leaders and best. The University has capitulated to the immoral demands of the federal government. We are meant to fight oppression and inequality, not help amplify it. I wholeheartedly disagree with the stance the University has taken.
Reply
PAUL FUCHS - 1974,1975
This is an embarrassment. What happened to the fight? UM used to be a leader, this is giving in to autocracy, a dictator. We all know an incredible amount of funding is on the line, is it worth fighting for? Will all research now be driven by executive orders? UM does have resources, financial and academic. Why not take this to the courts? When next they come to me, and my son a UM graduate, for financial support they will only get a strongly worded letter in response.
I reiterate: I am embarrassed, this is not my university.
Reply
Greg Martin - 1994, 1997
This is a capitulation to the harmful administration’s unlawful and regressive demands. U–M needs to fight harder against that evil. I truly hope that most of the crucial DEI initiatives U–M was carrying out will still take place under different names. But make no mistake—the government’s only goal in vilifying DEI is to further white supremacy and patriarchy in the US. History will judge whether U–M resisted that evil or gave in.
Reply
Donald Anderson - 1985
I understand why the U of M is doing this, but it still saddens me. I stand against fascists and Nazis. I’ve learned that not everyone else does. I studied world human history in detail last year, from the start of civilization to the present day in every part of the world. The pattern of authoritarian leaders is well documented and easily accessible to anyone who cares enough to study the subject. I never thought the United States would fall prey to fascism, even though that dystopian future has been a premise in many popular fictional stories.
I won’t abandon my moral principles, and I encourage others to remain steadfast as well. The future is not predetermined. Things can get better or worse depending on the actions of those who exert influence. In this case, University leaders have made things worse by capitulating to the demands of an authoritarian regime. But I have learned that the overall trend of human history is one of long-term improvement, interrupted by periods of instability and self-destruction. If enough of us continue to show empathy for everyone else, we will survive this dark period in our history.
Reply
Randall Petrides - 1974
As I read these passionate comments, so many of which sound the same, these thoughts came to mind.
1) the country is split politically and ideologically; the Michigan community (as with most other university communities) is not so split. It is heavily progressive. Should not a public university be more balanced? That is part of the reason that academia is so reviled in society – the “elites” have ushered in a solidly progressive culture that is out of step with much of America. Trump won the election and he campaigned on this DEI issue. The fact is, DEI is controversial.
2) That said, I am sympathetic to the lead reaction here. The administration is using power with more aggressiveness than we have ever seen and it is downright scary. Throwing a thunderbolt of power and forcing a capitulation is to me unconscionable. The capitulation looks bad. But do we know all there is to know that went into it? These comments sound just like football fans vilifying a coach’s play calling. Do the fans really know better than the coach?
3) On that point. I tried to put myself in Santa Ono’s position as he was about to hit the send button. He has been repeatedly called a coward in these comments. But it may have been easier to take the defiant resistance tact and be cheered by the Michigan family, then seeing billions taken away. He had to know he would create the firestorm of protest that he is getting and the threats to cancel support. He has to figure out what is best for the future of the university. And certainly this controversial decision (yes, a capitulation) was not made without extreme concern and with wide consultation. He was in a no win situation. It looks terrible but maybe there’s a game plan to reposition for the future: i.e. a tactical retreat.
4) which leads to my final thought. Do we really know from the outside whether the DEI bureaucracy was effective? For instance, my understanding is that the percentage of African-American admissions has dropped significantly since DEI arrived. That has to be a major metric to consider. DEI itself has become hugely symbolic with strong emotional attachments regardless if it works as is. As one commenter noted, diversity was better in the 80s, long before the DEI machine. DEI has become a powerful ideological force with certain ultra- progressive demands (almost a mirror image of the administration) that can be rightfully questioned, not just supported emotionally. I believe Santa Ono is sincere in his delicately worded indication that, circumstances require that DEI as a department must go, but that true ideals of diversity will still be pursued in other ways.
Reply
Shirley Fihn - 1956
The above comment was thoughtfully worded and I appreciate that. In truth I am not aware of what DEI did or did not do for the U of M, so I cannot make an informed comment. What gives me hope in today’s frightening world is the passion shown in your statements for our beloved country. We must speak out. We must not sit by and do nothing. DJT is a real threat to the freedom of each and every one of us. Character will always count in a big way. I am proud that so many of my fellow alumni are speaking up for what they believe is the right thing to do.
Reply
karen Shilling - 1963
I am terribly discouraged by this decision and do believe that it is an abandonment of inclusivity and reaching out to those who come from diverse economic and racial backgrounds. Too bad I don’t have a million dollars because if I did I would stop donating to a University I have loved and lauded for years
Reply
KC Sunshine - '80, '92
Thanks for this Randall – this is thoughtful and well-written.
Recent research shows that DEI programs have been a failure. These studies show that it has created more racial tension and resentment rather than less. Also, if one of the main goals is the “make (inset organization name here) more like the public we serve,” it’s clear that with regard to the U of M, it has made the institution less aligned with the general public in Michigan, not more. You said it yourself: “It is heavily progressive. Should not a public university be more balanced?” Yes it should, but DEI has failed in this regard and in many ways works actively against this.
Reply
Alan Sax - 1978
Wow, it is hard to square U of M’s high blown rhetoric with its craven behavior of bowing to the MAGA party line. It was once a source of pride to me that I attended a university that had values it stood for. The years I studied at Michigan were enriched by the variety of students and staff I interacted with and reducing that variety will not prepare our future generations for today’s changing world. Please make sure that preferences to legacy admissions and any major donors are removed to “level the playing field.” My Michigan family is very disturbed by this “prudent business decision.” It will impact where I encourage my grandchildren and other young friends to apply for further education.
Reply
Michelle Jeter - 1976
Wow! I am amazed as I read all of the vitriolic statements of those who appear to be in groupthink mode.
I applaud the University’s decision!!!
I will always be proud of Michigan, especially now that it will return to its roots of providing an excellent education to those who desire to pursue it, no matter who they are.
When I attended school in Ann Arbor, I had to rely on financial aid in order to attend. Students were from every type of background, creed, culture and socio-economic group, all with varied life experiences, which contributed to good critical thinking skills, innovation and competence.
I agree with grad, Clark McCain 1996 above—Rather than focus intently on what makes us different from one another by singling out individual groups, we can only be real, effective leaders by concentrating on our shared, common humanity, and see and embrace the WE of who we are.
Hail to the Victors!! Go Blue!!!
Reply
Megan Moffa - 2008
History will not look kindly on UM. I am disgusted that UM is kowtowing to a fascist, racist, and misogynistic government. You made our job of opposing this tyrannical regime that much harder.
Reply
Thomas Dingwall - 1970
Add my name to the long list of alumni who are deeply disturbed by the University of Michigan’s capitulation to the Trump administration. As someone who experienced the tumult of the Sixties at U of M, I can’t help but wonder if we will ever learn.
Reply
Stephanie Smith - 2004
I’m pretty sad to join the bulk of commenters here in having to express my extreme disappointment in my alma mater for capitulating to the whims of this racist, bigoted federal government. I used to be proud to have attended U of M, because I used to think of the school as inclusive and free-thinking, dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and the expansion of education. Yet again, the actual dedication is to the all-mighty dollar and kowtowing to fascists.
Reply
Susan Schwartz - 1977
U of M, shame on you for abandoning DEI now that The Victor has bent the knee to the T-regime. In your statement about “Reaffirming our focus on student access and opportunity” you state, “…we are reaffirming our focus on student access and opportunity by ensuring our resources are pointed toward the people and programs, which directly impact the success of our community.” You dare to use Abraham Lincoln as an exemplar – did you really write that with a straight face? C’mon. What a bunch of “newspeak.”
The benefits of your “fundamental commitment” now apply to a narrower population. Limiting the breadth and scope of a diverse student body is a disservice to your students, alums and us all. I have many family members and friends who attended U of M, and 3 granddaughters who sing “Hail…” at the tops of their lungs while watching football games on tv. We wore that affiliation with pride. We can no longer do so.
Reply
Dr. Stephen L Gaudioso - 1972
Up to this moment, I’ve been a proud Wolverine.
This capitulation to the bullying autocratic leaders of this now despoiled nation is beyond disappointing.
You can ‘suger-cost’ it with words that make it seem like what you are doing going forward is an improvement, when clearly it is a step backward from all that has been accomplished, but remains unfinished.
Regretfully, I will be suspending my small annual financial contributions to the UofM for the foreseeable future, and I would that many other alums will join me.
Reply
Anne Harris - 1988
To watch my alma mater crumble and fall prey to the bidding of an uhinged oligarch and his fascist regime is unconscionable. It pains me deeply to see this university, which owes its esteemed reputation to the contributions of countless people who do not fit the parameters of cis white male, close the door in our faces, and turn their back to our legacy, and on its own rich history. To make the decision that being diverse, equitable, and inclusive are no longer important benchmarks of a thriving university speaks volumes about what it does prioritize.
Reply
Mark Dillen - 1973
How sad. Dressed up in the language of obfuscation, the University’s statement reads like a corporate press release. As they “pivot” to new “student-facing” programs, the “stakeholders” had better look in the mirror. I’m sure that DEI programs were not perfect but abandoning them so quickly under pressure from “the new presidential administration” is a craven act. Michigan should try to influence the “national landscape,” not just “navigate” it.
Reply
Haley Riley - 2022
Extremely shameful that a school I value so much has turned its back against students who are not traditionally prioritized in academia. This decision is a massive step backwards and goes against values that UMich staff and students instilled within me.
I don’t understand who this decision serves and fear any hope I had in the current UMich administration has been entirely dashed. Announcing this decision days after the annual fundraising drive is blatantly strategic and shameful.
Reply
adrienne goering - 1993 - Residential College
Shame. On. You. What a morally bankrupt and utterly disgraceful move. And triple shame on you for shuttering the LEAD Scholars program. Foolish me – thinking that because it was run by the Alumni Association that it would remain a safe haven.
Reply
Roger Rayle - 1969,1971
“First, they came for DEI…”
More than 50% of new startups are by 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from diverse backgrounds.
Diversity is America’s “Secret Sauce” … likewise for Equity Equality & Inclusion.
Without it, we lose our edge.
Reply
B. R. Proctor - 1970, 1974
I recommend reading Lee Bollinger’s March 11, 2025, interview by reporters for the Chronicle of Higher Education on Trump, Columbia, and why capitulation won’t work.
Reply
Nancy Allen - 1965
I echo all the cries of disappointment in the University. I have always been very proud to be a graduate of U of M and I am very surprised to see them roll over to a government that is clearly out to hurt America and American people. I’m not so proud now.
Reply
Alan Greenberg - 1960
First of all, any comment that accuses the Federal administration of fascism should not even be printed, or at least, should be ignored. Getting back to common sense has taken quite a while and the current movement against DEI is long overdue. Yes, it took a common sense, no-nonsense President to move this needle.
Reply
Paul Messink - 1975
Shame on you.
Shame for bowing to political pressure from a federal administration who prioritizes racial purity (white people only) rather than all people.
I feel ashamed that my university is abandoning strategic plans under political pressure. This university is no longer a place where I feel welcome or appreciated.
Reply
Rich Valley - 1976
I am disappointed with Michigan’s decision to capitulate to the White House’s grossly political demands to dismantle DEI initiatives. So many of us have counted on the University to be a foundational leader in social justice that was always backed by solid social science. We need strong voices at the institutional and individual level to keep our nation a vibrant place for it’s people. Equally important, these voices must articulate standards that we can apply internationally – bully tactics tolerated towards our universities endorses bully tactics to our international partners and the abandonment of empathetic aid to struggling populations.
I found this DEI message from Michigan leadership weak. I think it lacked honesty around the reasons for the DEI actions. I would like to see the complete analysis, $, jobs, research tradeoffs that led to the decision versus a mushy statement around the current administration policies and spotty results of DEI initiatives. I have faith that Michigan can standup and do what it sees as the right thing. Go Blue!
Reply
Tish Lazowska - 77
Hooray for the University of Michigan and for the Trump administration finally providing the incentive necessary to effect this long-overdue change. I hope it actually reflects a genuine retreat from policies that have discriminated, divided and demeaned.
Reply
Ruben Ornelas - 1998
At this time I feel no pride in being a Michigan alum.
Reply
Renee Gutierrez - 1997
I am very disappointed that UM is capitulating to the racism of the Trump administration. Shame on you! I am a little less proud to be a Wolverine today.
Reply
Gary Ballesteros - 1988
The decision to capitulate is shameful and brings nothing but dishonor to the University. DEI programs were conceived and implemented for valid and beneficial reasons that remain as true today as ever. Why not stand and defend those decisions rather than cave to the dictates of an autocrat?
Reply
Frank Spies - 61, 64
I was so relieved to hear of the end of the DEI program. I see a possible return to merit, freedom of speech, diversity of opinion, freedom of expression, and then I read these comments. I kept reading the words “fascist” and “racist”. I thought of the DEI department in those terms, fascist and racist. I was not contributing to the UofM because I was afraid my money would be wasted on promoting DEI.
Reply
Alessio Ambrosino - 2018
This I believe the correct characterization of DEI initiatives. They suggest diversity is a strength, yet no institution promoting DEI is tolerating diversity of thought—which is the actual type of diversity that makes an organization excel. They just want to make sure it’s racially diverse and everyone is thinking the same. I see it in the universities I’ve attended and at my office. A good friend of mine works at an office promoting their diverse workplace…. 2 white women, 3 Italian men and 50+ Chinese and Japanese men. That’s not diverse, but it’s not white and that’s what really matters to the modern liberals whether they want to admit it or not.
Reply
Asha Sarode - 2004
Very disappointed as well. I was so proud to be a Wolverine and I having seen so many comments admonishing this move – I’m still very proud. But I can’t agree with this decision and since that the only thing that seems to move the needle are dollars, I’ll be reallocating my donations elsewhere.
Reply
Michael Pabian - 1976 Law
Regardless of the practical effects of the changes, the moves clearly signal a capitulation to the Trump administration, giving it a win, and encouraging it to make additional and increasingly extreme demands. It is sad that the University has so readily abandoned its moral and intellectual leadership role. It might as well have had Mark Zuckerberg include the announcement with his own.
Reply
Kevin Detroy - 2001
I am deeply troubled by the University’s decision, but not necessarily for the reasons discussed in many of the comments. I do not believe that DEI programs are inherently positive or destructive. Rather, each program must be evaluated on its merits, and whether any such program will be a force for good or ill lies in its goals and implementation. For this reason, I would not take issue with the University revising or even discontinuing its DEI program if the decision to do so was made after careful consideration of the University’s stated priorities and the various competing interests.
What concerns me greatly is that this decision was made, not in conformance with the reasoned process stated above, but rather to appease the current administration and its manipulative agenda. The University, like all institutions of higher learning, must first and foremost foster independent thought, and this critical mission is wholly jeopardized when it subjugates itself to the whims of political influence. The University should chart its own path, full stop.
Reply
B Costas - 2008
Today I unsubscribed from the UMich news letter. I have no desire to keep up with my alma mater after this craven display of cowardice. I certainly won’t be donating in the future. When I attended the school, the one disappointing blemish of my time in Ann Arbor was the Ku Klux Klan proudly marching down the streets every year, showcasing their hatefulness and bigotry. It was a time every year that served as a sad reminder of how much hate still existed in the world. I was encouraged by the University showing its commitment to standing up against hate and those that would try to take America backward to a time of bitter racism. I feel sad for future UM students who will have to face the fact that the University chooses not to stand up for them going forward.
Reply
T LEWIS - 1999, 2026
I’m surprised at some of the comments (coming from supposedly degreed individuals) that seem to imply that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion don’t co-exist with merit. Being diverse, and inclusive does NOT mean that non-white are selected over white students because of color, nor that minority students are selected without being “qualified” or deserving.
Self-Awareness is an intellectual and admirable quality. Just because you THINK something doesn’t directly impact you, doesn’t mean that you are actually unaffected nor that you aren’t negatively impacting those around you. Are you unaware of your biases, or just completely comfortable being biased?
Ask yourself:
1. Am I AGAINST including everyone?
2. Am I AGAINST not excluding people based on unjust, non-academic reasons?
3. Am I AGAINST educating EVERYONE about their own biases (that they may or may not be aware of) and how those biases impact others?
We ALL have bias, whether that be in the area of Education, Socio-Economic Status, Physical ability, Religion, Gender, Sexual Preference, Race, etc …
Assess your tendencies and be honest about why you are against being inclusive and/or against learning about or educating about biases that exist.
Reply
Clark McCain - 1996
T Lewis,
I found that once I gained a fuller understanding of the intellectual underpinnings of DEI, it became much less attractive as a concept. Prior to having that depth of understanding, I supported what I felt it to mean – the very basic description you use.
But such a basic understanding leads one to ask the wrong questions. Of course, the answer to your three questions is no, but those are the wrong questions.
Do you believe there is no such thing as objective truth?
Do you believe relationships between people are primarily premised on power?
Do you believe a fundamental reality of the ideal society is the homogeneous racial group?
If you honestly answer yes to these questions, then continue to advocate for DEI.
Reply
David Whiteside - 1965 BA, 1966 MA
I am dumbfounded. Beyond disappointed. Once proud of my two Michigan degrees, I am now ashamed. The University regents and administrators who decided to capitulate to Washington’s reactionary autocrats, to collaborate rather than resist should resign, be recalled, or fired. The entire U of M community should rebel against this horrible decision.
Reply
Patricia Okuniewicz-Loving - 1978 MSW
As a Social Policy and Planning graduate, I was appalled to learn of the university’s decision to abandon DEI. I remembering lobbying for the hiring. inclusion, of a woman professor in my program before I went to DC for my fieldwork and was disappointed when I returned to discover another male professor was hired. At 78 yrs old, I am so ashamed of my alma mater.
Reply
Marina Borsini - 1989
I strongly support DEI, but I believe its focus should shift toward expanding opportunities based on family income rather than race, gender, or ethnicity. Poverty knows no color, and addressing economic disparities is the DEI we need now. The despair and lack of opportunity felt by a growing segment of the U.S. population helped propel an incompetent and corrupt person like Donald Trump to the presidency. Expanding access to education for students from rural and low-income backgrounds is a powerful way to counteract the rise of autocratic leaders.
At Michigan, the DEI program has primarily increased bureaucracy and, by its own internal analysis, has not been particularly effective at fostering cohesion and belonging on campus. It’s time to rethink DEI, not based on what makes alumni feel good, but on what helps more diverse students succeed.
Reply
Peter Wiedenbeck - 1979
Developments since January have put University leadership in an incredibly difficult position. Is is important to recognize that unprecedented and arbitrary demands of our new government by fiat endanger the careers, livelihood, and education of thousands of faculty, staff, and students. The University must take their vulnerability and welfare into account as it charts its course. But as the institution defensively adjusts to protect essential funding, it should strive to avoid endorsing or assisting the corrupt, ignorant, autocratic new order. I sincerely hope that University leaders are intensively engaged in networking, coalition building, and litigation support behind the scenes, even as extortion forces them to publicly capitulate.
Reply
Alina Underwood - 2013
How can you expect to bring up the next generations of “Leaders and Best” while modeling capitulation and cowardice in the face of fascism?
I had hopes that my alma mater would be a model for public institutions, standing strong against tyranny and rallying community support, but this choice has clearly undermined alumni faith in our beloved institution – as evidenced by this comment section.
It’s no longer great to be a Michigan Wolverine. Shameful.
Reply
Alessio Ambrosino - 2018
Everyone here commenting how this is a travesty is clearly ignoring the body of the message. This proposal sounds great. They’ll stop prioritizing certain racial, gender, etc. groups over others (equal opportunity), but UM will still get support for these multicultural communities and student assistance—less funding to useless jobs and more money going to help the academic achievement of the student body. In addition, professors wasting their time on DEI initiatives will be able to focus completely on their actual jobs instead of patting each other on the back for how progressive they look to each other. Campus DEI programs across this country have been just one gigantic financial scam and circle jerk. I lean left, have always voted democrat, but cannot stand this cultural takeover of extreme liberal ideology that occurred over the last decade. Time to end it and get back to hiring and admissions based on actual qualifications and not racial/gender quotas.
Reply
John Mirsky - 1977
U-M DEI activities should have been reformed to be more efficient and effective, not abandoned under pressure from the Trump Administration and its allies. This country and U-M have never been and still are far from being a meritocracy.
I find it equally sad that the Alumni Association chose to end its LEAD Scholars Program, apparently due to pressure from the University and the threat of Trump Administration action against the U and the Association, especially since it was entirely funded by private donations.
Reply
Linda Shallow - 1983
I am so ashamed of the University of Michigan for taking this DEI stance. Graduating from the University of Michigan has been one of the most important and prideful accomplishments of my life, always bragging that I attended this wonderful university. Now I am deeply ashamed for the politically motivated direction the university has taken. I was one of the best universities in the world. You would think they would have the courage to stand up for what is right and not bend to wind of the current divisive political US leadership. Apparently we now have MAGA supporters in charge of the University I’m gone of the days that the university of Michigan Ann Arbor was an enlightened community of safety and refuge.
Reply
William R. Landgraf - '76 BA; ,79 JD
I have read most all of the above comments and replies since my earlier comment above calling to “See you in Court!”, and I still agree with diversity, equality, and inclusion (notice the lower case). However, I am beginning to see that, in fact, the smaller-in-import of the two issues involved here is much more nuanced than one might think, i.e. the pros and cons of DEI. I plan to read the NYT article about the efficacy of DEI programs and Lee Bollinger’s interview, both mentioned above. One of the problems in analyzing this issue is the fluctuating definition of DEI that we may all be using. To me, equality etc. should be a matter of sensitivity to, and acceptance of, others that are different from our self, not quotas. To put this idea into practice, as with, say, admissions or employment advancement, is obviously the difficult part! There actually may be more unanimity in these remarks here than we think; even with those (lesser in number) who say “Down with DEI!” The second, more important, underlying issue is the dastardly and despicable moral and personal character of Donald J. Trump (and I do not think that we have to go into all of that!). He is just plainly a serious danger to Democracy (with a capital “D”!). It is only by the rule of law, with an independent and courageous Judiciary, that we can save ourselves from what is becoming (and should have been seen coming!) a homogeneous, unequal, and exclusionary society, i.e., rich white men only, that is run by narrow thinking, self-serving [and lots of other appropriate negative adjective] oligarchs. Debate about what are proper DEI goals, methods, and implementation, or non-implementation can only occur and flourish if our Democracy, individual rights, and our right to self actualization are protected. I still say to Mr. Trump: “See you in Court!”
Reply
C Holzman - 2011 Law
Capitulating to autocrats is shameful.
Reply
Happy Alumnus - 1997
For those alumni who do not believe in social engineering and/or Marxist politics, this is a happy day. Long live diversity and inclusion, and goodbye false engineering of “equity.”
Reply
Bill Oliver - 1989
OK, I’m an old white guy. However, I’m proud to say that the bulk of my education came, not from the classroom, but from having the opportunity to interact with a diverse group of people while studying at the University of Michigan. While I can’t say whether or not the aforementioned DEI programs, as constituted, offered meaningful value, stigmatizing the concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion is clearly regressive and should be strenuously opposed.
Reply