A quiet shift is underway, a subtle recalibration disguised as compliance. For those who believe the tide is turning against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, the University of Missouri School of Medicine offers a stark warning: vigilance is not optional, it’s essential.
The school recently sent a letter demanding removal from a list of institutions maintaining DEI offices. Their claim? The old office has been dissolved. The reality, however, is far more calculated – a rebranding exercise, a fresh coat of paint on the same underlying structure.
The university insists its “C” grade in a key Medical School Excellence Index, which assesses ideological influence on admissions and grading, was a result of the initial rebranding. They now argue that with the DEI office “dissolved,” the grade is inaccurate. But the details reveal a carefully constructed illusion.
What was once a dedicated DEI office is now “CaPS” – Community, Professional Proficiency and Student Success. The university maintains CaPS isn’t a DEI office and doesn’t prioritize race in its programs. Yet, CaPS is led by the former dean for diversity and inclusion, and operates under the very “Inclusive Excellence Framework” developed by the original DEI office.
Watchdog organization Do No Harm sees through the facade. They believe Missouri is attempting to secure funding in a politically conservative state by simply changing the name, while maintaining the same functions and personnel. It’s a calculated maneuver to appear compliant with restrictions on DEI programs.
This tactic isn’t isolated. It mirrors a broader trend of semantic evasion. Consider the term “wokeness” itself – once a rallying cry, now often dismissed or denied, even as the underlying ideologies persist. The denial of the term doesn’t erase the concepts it represents.
Similarly, DEI departments aren’t disappearing; they’re evolving. They’re being subtly rebranded, their missions tweaked, their language softened. The core principles, however, often remain unchanged, hidden beneath a veneer of new terminology.
The University of Colorado, for example, rebranded its DEI office as the “Office of Collaboration.” At Caltech, a diversity official received a title change – to “associate vice president for campus climate, engagement, and success” – with no apparent shift in her responsibilities. These aren’t anomalies; they’re part of a pattern.
You can rename a department anything – “Department of Awesome Monster Truck Rallies and Heckin’ Good Doggos” – but it doesn’t alter its fundamental purpose. If it functions as a DEI office, it remains a DEI office, and subject to any applicable regulations.
The danger lies in complacency. If we believe the fight is over, these deceptive tactics will succeed. This isn’t a moment for triumphalism, but for continued scrutiny. The battle against ideological capture in institutions is far from won, no matter what it’s called.
