If Harvard Is Serious About Combating Racial Discrimination, She Will Immediately Dismantle DEI Programs

A guest post by J. Kennerly Davis, Jr.

Source: Harvard University

These are perilous times for Harvard University. The steadily escalating conflict with the federal government over university policies and public funding has placed billions of dollars at risk and threatens to inflict severe damage on Harvard’s reputation as the nation’s premier institution of higher education.

On May 13th, the federal government’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism released a formal statement finding that Harvard “has repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination... plaguing its campus.”

Although much of the current focus surrounds litigation over the government’s decision to freeze more than $2.6 billion in Harvard's federal funding, the broader issue is clear: the university’s current trajectory risks undermining her legal and moral legitimacy. If Harvard is serious about addressing discrimination, there is one clear, immediate step she should take: dismantle all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs and eliminate the Bias Reporting System used to enforce compliance with those programs.

These programs are not just ineffective—they are counterproductive and deeply harmful. DEI programs cultivate racial division and resentment, institutionalizing an ideology rooted in neo-Marxist theory and stoked by the murderous anti-Western ideology of Frantz Fanon’s violent decolonization dogmas. DEI programs starkly divide and dangerously discriminate in clear violation of civil rights law. They show favoritism toward the members of all groups they categorize as the victims of Western White supremacism, and animosity toward the members of all groups they categorize as representatives of oppressive Western White supremacism. They promote discrimination in the name of equity, favoring some groups while vilifying others, in open violation of both civil rights law and the basic principles of fairness.

At first glance, my opposition to DEI programs might seem strange, even troubling. Who, after all, could be opposed to fostering greater diversity, equity, and inclusion? These are seemingly worthy goals, and they appear to align with America’s founding ideals and Harvard’s own stated mission.¹

But the problem is not necessarily with these ideals themselves. The problem lies in how DEI programs have come to define and implement them. Today’s DEI initiatives are steeped in an ideology that categorizes individuals into rigid identity groups based on race, gender, and other immutable characteristics, then ranks them according to some perceived historical oppression. They presume guilt and virtue not by individual character or merit, but by group identity.

These programs divide the academic community into oppressors and victims, rewarding those who conform and punishing dissenters. Administrators conduct ideological struggle sessions meant to shame, silence, or re-educate anyone who resists the prevailing orthodoxy. Not long ago, people were compelled to submit loyalty oaths or attend mandatory training that enforces ideological conformity.

Meritocracy and equal protection under the law are denounced as obstacles to equity. In their place, DEI advocates pursue the discriminatory leveling of benefits and opportunities based on group identity. Ironically, this harms the very individuals these programs claim to help by denying them equal treatment and the dignity of earning success based on merit and ability.

The damage doesn’t end there. DEI orthodoxy suppresses free expression through cancellation tactics, anonymous denunciations, and speech-policing bias reporting systems. Harvard’s Bias Reporting System, far from protecting against bias, has become an institutional tool for enforcing it—creating a climate of fear, self-censorship, and intellectual stagnation.

Such programs are fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of a free society—and with Harvard’s historic mission, embodied in the motto Veritas, the pursuit of truth. If Harvard’s leaders truly want to demonstrate their commitment to racial equality and to restoring institutional integrity, she will dismantle the divisive DEI bureaucracy and the systems used to enforce it. There is no compromise to be made with an ideology that chills the warmth of polite society. Eliminating DEI programs is not only consistent with Harvard’s long-term interests—it is essential to preserving them.

J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., JD ’74, is a former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

1. From Harvard’s mission statement: “Through a diverse living environment, where students live with people who are studying different topics, who come from different walks of life and have evolving identities, intellectual transformation is deepened and conditions for social transformation are created.”