On December 18, the Idaho State Board of Education unanimously voted to ban DEI offices from its public colleges and universities. The Board resolution declared, “Institutions shall ensure that no central offices, policies, procedures, or initiatives are dedicated to DEI ideology.” Though this action may seem like a great win, it largely fails to make meaningful progress.
The major shortcoming of the Board’s resolution is its failure to accurately define “DEI ideology,” which it describes as an “approach that prioritizes personal identity characteristics (race, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or gender identity) over individual merit.” While this definition is partially accurate, it does not properly capture the true essence of DEI or its effect on higher education institutions.
What is DEI?
DEI is a set of governing principles derived from the tenets of critical theory, also known as cultural Marxism. While this term may seem like rhetoric, it cuts to the truth of what DEI actually is. As explained by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, critical theory “refers to the work of several generations of philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School.”
In the same way that traditional Marxist theory understands everything as a byproduct of class warfare, cultural Marxism views every facet of society through the narrow lens of perceived oppression. The broad goal of critical theory is to liberate all “marginalized groups” from all existing cultural, political, and economic “power structures” they deem oppressive. Accordingly, DEI must be understood as an institutional means through which to accomplish the aims of critical theory.
Within critical theory exists various subgenres dedicated to eliminating niche forms of “oppression.” As further explained by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “[T]here are many different strands of critical theory…with the emancipatory goals of various social and political movements, such as feminist theory, critical race theory, queer theory, and postcolonial/decolonial theory.”
According to DEI ideology, an individual’s “membership” in any one of these oppressed classes entitles them to a unique moral status. One’s “identity” as a member of multiple oppressed classes is known as intersectionality, which promotes a form of victim Olympics. In this sense, the Board’s definition correctly captures a single element of DEI ideology, which is that so-called “marginalized groups” are entitled to special treatment and resources. However, the policies, programs, and initiatives accompanying DEI ideology extend far beyond its assault on meritocracy.
It is essential to understand that DEI is an inherently political ideology, hence its emphasis on “social justice.” As explained by the University of Idaho’s College of Education Health and Human Sciences (EHHS), the commitment to “equity and social justice requires an ongoing active and engaged participation to advocate for concrete institutional transformation, which is measured by material and ideological change.” Further emphasizing this point, EHHS declares that “we must actively work towards deconstructing the ways in which institutions perpetuate the oppression of all identities.”
In traditional Marxist theory, an essential step in achieving its revolutionary aims is the development of class consciousness among the working class, which is the understanding of their shared class interest to oppose the perceived tyranny of the wealthy. In cultural Marxism, the development of class consciousness is equally important, and individuals must be made aware of the way society “oppresses” them as a woman, minority, homosexual, or otherwise.
In effect, DEI ideology transforms the fundamental goal of colleges and universities from producing doctors, lawyers, and engineers to creating “agents of social change.” It is this transformation of our system of higher education into intellectual boot camps for radical political activists that is at the heart of the problem. The fact that certain populations of students are receiving special resources from the University of Idaho’s Office of Equity and Diversity is only a symptom of a much deeper institutional sickness.
DEI Persists
It is the failure of the State Board of Education to correctly identify and address the root of the problem that makes its recent actions insufficient. Our colleges and universities should not be training students on how to become LGBTQ+ “allies” or have their libraries directing students to watch Robin DiAngelo talk about “white fragility.” It does not matter if there is no longer an office with DEI written above its door if all of the programs and initiatives associated with it just become decentralized or rebranded, as has happened in universities across the country.
Don’t be fooled; while Boise State may have shut down its Gender Equity Center and scrubbed its website of all evidence of wrongdoing, it has no intention of ending its DEI programs. As explained by the President of Idaho State University during the Dec. 18 meeting, their decision to restructure the Office of Equity and Inclusion is by no means an indication of its lack of dedication to DEI. “We have not done away with programs,” President Wagner explained, “what we are doing is reorganizing where those programs originate from.” This admission received no condemnation from the Board, making it clear that simply reshuffling and rebranding DEI offices is all that is required for compliance with their resolutions.
If the Board were serious about eliminating this radical, subversive ideology from our college campuses, they would have issued a broader resolution that emphatically prohibits all programs and initiatives associated with any tenet of critical theory.
What More Needs to be Done
In light of Dr. Wagner’s admission, additional measures are required to prevent college and university administrations from circumventing bans on DEI programs. As further explained by ISU President Wagner, “[I]nstead of having offices lead the programs, we are now having our professionals work with student organizations and clubs to lead and administer and to run these activities.” Therefore, steps must be taken to ensure that student clubs and organizations do not become substitutes for existing DEI bureaucracies.
Of course, students are entitled to exercise their right to free speech and assembly. However, they are not entitled to spend other students’ tuition in order to do so. It is palpably unjust to force students to fund DEI-related programs with their tuition and fees, regardless of who administers it. Any student organization or club engaging in such activities should be barred from coordinating with members of the administration and required to obtain independent funding.
It is also essential to address the most common and durable source of DEI ideology in colleges and universities: the classroom. Currently, UI, BSU, and ISU all include some form of mandatory “diversity” course in their general education requirements. These requirements include courses whose pedagogies are clearly influenced by critical theory, such as “Sociology of Gender,” “Introduction to Gender Studies,” and “Racism and Antiracism.” In addition to eliminating all DEI offices, positions, and programs, students should not be forced to take DEI-related coursework to earn their diplomas.
Achieving the complete elimination of DEI ideology will require culling the degrees colleges and universities offer. Though activists will claim such reforms violate the principle of academic freedom, there is no legal mandate for the people of Idaho to fund gender or ethnic studies. Such programs have no academic merit and are nothing more than state-subsidized echo chambers for radical leftist ideology.
As public institutions, our colleges and universities should reflect the values of the population they were instituted to serve. If a student wishes to be indoctrinated by critical theory, let them attend one of the other several thousand institutions across the country available to them. In Idaho, however, we ought to take a principled stand against using public funds to subsidize cultural Marxism in any form.
Though the State Board of Education’s recent resolutions are a good moral victory, the fight against this pernicious ideology will not be solved with a single resolution or bill. In the short term, more must be done to eliminate all DEI programs, initiatives, and mandatory coursework. Looking forward, both the state legislature and the Board of Education will need to aggressively reform Idaho’s public institutions of higher education.
The fight over DEI in higher education extends far beyond ensuring that resources are fairly distributed across the student body. Cultural Marxism is a revolutionary ideology devoted to destroying our national heritage and the American way of life. There is still much work to do to purge it from every level of Idaho’s public education system.
