The late British novelist and author George Orwell understood how language could be twisted to invert its meaning and camouflage intentions.

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”

Let’s be clear: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), as applied, means just the opposite of the simple definitions of these words. It is a clever way to attack the very notion of meritocracy and excellence at its core. Who gets to define what is diverse, equitable, and inclusive? And what do those have to do with personal, professional, or academic achievement? Or, as Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has said, “There’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” 

Well, that’s easy for her to say. Alas, most of us won’t end up as a major party nominee for President without a single vote cast. 

The insincerity of DEI is probably not news to most conservatives. The question is, what is to be done about it? 

DEI must be removed from Idaho’s public institutions, root and branch. The fight has been ongoing for several years. The challenge is that the proponents are chameleons, so merely attacking the nomenclature is insufficient.  Another example is the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, which recently renamed its DEI office to the Office of Engagement and Retention. But the mission sure smells like the old DEI.

Mission: The Office of Engagement and Retention synchronizes and leverages academy engagement and retention efforts that focus on attracting, hiring, retaining, and developing an inclusive and cohesive staff, faculty, and Corps of Cadets; and engages West Point organizations, DoD, Army partners, and the external community in support of West Point’s mission to build, educate, train, and inspire leaders of character serving in our culturally diverse Army.

Idaho’s battle with DEI has fallen short in part because opponents have not found the right tools to deploy and also because some members of the establishment are heavily invested in this pernicious ideology. And again, there is that problem with the nomenclature. 

Let’s examine several attempts by Idaho’s Legislature to rein in DEI and other related ideologies:

1. During the 2021 session, House Bill 377 was signed into law, prohibiting institutions from compelling students to affirm belief in a lengthy list of tenants associated with “critical race theory,” also known as CRT. CRT was a foundational building block of DEI; e.g., because society was structurally racist, the remedy would be the shift from a merit-based system to one based on “equity,” as described earlier by candidate Harris. The problem with this approach is that not only could the terminology of CRT be easily replaced with another acronym, but also, a public institution didn’t have to refrain from preaching a racial and gender-oriented gospel day after day. They just couldn’t compel a student to affirm it — and no clarity was provided on how this would be measured. 
2. During the 2021 session, the Legislature took the unprecedented step of cutting the budget for four-year universities by $2.5 million. House Bill 387 included a single line item described as a “social justice reduction” for Boise State University, the University of Idaho, and Idaho State University. While this was a major embarrassment for the universities, it amounted to a less than 1% cut of the overall appropriated budget of $630 million. And, so, no meaningful course correction was accomplished.
3. The 2023 session produced Senate Bill 1176, the appropriation bill for the colleges and universities. Section 6 prohibited using appropriated funds for DEI or social justice activities, clubs, events, or organizations on campus. The universities maintain that they can use non-appropriated funds for DEI activities. As the report from the State Board of Education shows, the universities have entirely dodged the issue by clinging to the claim that no “state-appropriated funds” are being used. 
4. The 2024 College and University appropriations bill, House Bill 734, contained a section 3 that essentially was a repeat of section 6 from the prior year on using state appropriations for DEI and social justice. 

And yet, despite this list of attempts to address the issue, the DEI infrastructure has continued to grow and flourish at Idaho’s Universities, as we have documented. The DEI infrastructure and staff are now bigger than ever.

So, if all these attempts by the Legislature haven’t worked, what will work? Senate Bill 1357, which was not given a hearing during the 2024 legislative session, was expressly drafted to define and defund DEI as it exists today on Idaho’s higher education campuses.

• It has extensive definitions and examples of the current DEI infrastructure at the universities;
• It prohibits funding from any sources for DEI bureaucracies and training programs;
• It prohibits political loyalty tests.

In the end, one point should be clear: the Legislature has the upper hand in the appropriation process. If the universities persist in promoting DEI, their funding should be cut until they stop. The Legislature needs to exert its authority and do it clearly.

The DEI programs at Idaho’s universities have been operating for over nine years, arguably beginning with hiring a Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Idaho in 2015. It is time for the practices of universities to return to what higher education used to be: institutions promoting and encouraging merit, excellence, and the intelligence of students working to succeed in higher education and, indeed, in life.