PROF. GARRETT: Free speech and honest inquiry win in the University of California System
The University of California has begun to turn the page on ideological gatekeeping and is taking its first steps toward true academic freedom.
A former tenured professor at Bakersfield College, Matthew Garrett is the founder of Renegade Institute for Liberty, an organization dedicated to promoting intellectual diversity. He launched the California Curriculum Center shortly after retiring from academia to offer nonpartisan curricula for independent educators and charter schools.
The University of California has taken a bold and necessary step in defense of academic freedom by ending the use of diversity statements in faculty hiring, Campus Reform reported. This decision, handed down by the UC Board of Regents, marks a turning point in the fight against political litmus tests in higher education and signals a renewed commitment to open intellectual inquiry.
Critics have long raised concerns about diversity statements, but what prompted the UC Board of Regents to act now?
According to the official letter from UC Provost Katherine Newman, there was never a systemwide mandate, yet diversity statements quietly surfaced a de facto requirement—infusing an unnecessary ideology into hiring decisions. The letter acknowledges that these required statements force candidates to “focus on an aspect of their candidacy that is outside their expertise or prior experience.” In other words, universities expect faculty applicants to pledge devotion to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), even when it has nothing to do with their field.
This incongruity is especially pronounced in technical and scientific fields. A physicist or chemist is not hired to advance social agendas but to apply the laws of nature in the pursuit of truth. The introduction of “culturally responsive math” and other diluted curricula weakens academic rigor, often shifting focus from mastering objective sills to performing ideological affirmations. Even in the humanities, diversity statements served to ensure research that affirmed prescribed ideological axioms.
Diversity statements also raise concerns about ideological coercion. Junior faculty are keenly aware that their future applications—not to mention grant proposals and tenure evaluations—will be judged on their devotion to DEI. As a result, they are incentivized to infuse it into their work at every juncture. This fosters an ideological echo chamber, where professional advancement depends less on scholarly merit and more on an applicant’s willingness to endorse preferential treatment for favored groups.
The issue is particularly troubling in California, where the state constitution explicitly prohibits hiring decisions based on race or gender preferences. Diversity statements do not merely allow minority applicants to signal their identity; they allow the university to screen for candidates who endorse hiring decisions based on race or gender. When universities ask, “What have you done to advance the needs of X group?” they are really assessing whether the applicant will continue supporting legally dubious preference policies and programs on the campus. Non-believers can be quietly eliminated, further deepening the already skewed and intolerant professorship.
[RELATED: PROF. GARRETT: Why these professors are hypocrites on academic freedom]
Legal concerns also played a role. Newman’s letter emphasizes compliance with state and federal law, signaling that UC leaders recognized clear legal risks in requiring diversity statements. Public universities cannot lawfully compel faculty to adopt a political stance as a condition of employment. With the Office of Civil Rights now aggressively investigating left-wing civil rights violations throughout higher education, the UC’s decision not only defends academic freedom but also shields the university from potential lawsuits.
The University of California has begun to turn the page on ideological gatekeeping and is taking its first steps toward true academic freedom. By striking down the requirement for diversity statements, the Regents have prioritized truth-seeking over ideological conformity. This is more than a policy change—it is a declaration that the university will be a place of genuine inquiry, where ideas flourish and scholars are judged by their work, not their politics.
I applaud the UC Board of Regents for taking this overdue but courageous step. Today marks a bright new dawn for scholarship, a return to the founding principles of merit, excellence, and fearless intellectual exchange. The university doors are now truly open—not just to the right voices, but to all voices. Let this be the beginning of a renaissance in higher education, where the only test that matters is the search for truth.
Editorials and op-eds reflect the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of Campus Reform or the Leadership Institute.
