Claremont Fellow Says DEI Is an Unethical and Accountability-Free Zone

In the past few years, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs have become an important part of American schools, businesses, and even the government. DEI programs were sold as socially good movements that would fix systemic injustices, but they have instead become breeding grounds for corruption, favoritism, and extreme ideologies. Jeremy Carl, a Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, says that DEI has turned into “an accountability-free zone” where there is no ethical oversight and people who don’t care about upholding academic or professional norms are drawn in.

Carl’s harsh accusation came during an open and honest interview on The Matt Gaetz Show, where he talked about a quickly growing academic scandal involving Dr. Rachel Hardman of the University of Minnesota. This case, along with others like it, has made conservatives look more closely at DEI structures and brought up a very troubling question: Is DEI just an ideological racket that the taxpayers pay for?

In the Hardman scandal, a DEI favorite was put under fire

Rachel Hardman was once a true star in the DEI world. Hardman worked his way up through the academic ranks as an associate professor with the prestigious Blue Cross Endowed Professorship in Health and Racial Equity. He did this by fighting for causes that many on the left consider sacred, like racial justice, ending racism, and systemic change. But there is a story behind all the praise and media attention that makes people doubt the validity of her work.

Hardman is being accused of copying not only academic work but also whole charts and writing passages from her own students. The charges are not small; they go to the heart of academic honesty. But investigations inside the university played down the claims, calling them “honest mistakes.” For conservatives, this weak reaction shows a bigger issue: the use of identity politics as a weapon to protect favored individuals from being held accountable.

In any other situation, academic plagiarism would mean the end of your job. But in the DEI bubble, it seems like even the worst behavior is okay as long as it’s wrapped in the right ideology paper.

Plagiarism and bribery: Where the Money Leads

The moral problems that Hardman’s actions cause go far beyond the walls of a college classroom. A huge amount of money has been given to her study center: $5 million from Blue Cross and $1.8 million from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These grants were given out in the name of health equality and fighting racism. They are now being looked at again because of credible reports of plagiarism that look like a “Christmas tree lit up” with red flags.

Still, these red flags didn’t set off alarms in the institutions. Why? The reason for this is that DEI doesn’t follow normal rules in its current state. This way of thinking is safe and doesn’t have to follow the same rules of ethics or be looked at with as much scrutiny as other academic or science fields. “DEI is an accountability-free zone,” as Carl says so well.

This isn’t just about one teacher. The issue at hand is an ideological ecosystem that is paid for by taxpayers and refuses to be inspected while expecting complete trust.

Who Keeps an Eye on the Watchers in the DEI Industrial Complex?

Jeremy Carl’s point is more than just bad behavior by one person. He says that unethical behavior is drawn to the DEI framework on purpose, not by chance. He talks about a study by conservative journalist Chris Rufo that found DEI workers are more likely than their peers to cheat on their schoolwork.

This link is not an accident. Carl says that DEI is philosophically closed off. It awards loyalty over logic, activism over facts, and following the rules over thinking critically. Speak out for the right causes and say the right things, and the system will repay you with grants, promotions, and protection from being sued.

To put it another way, DEI has become a haven for swindlers—people who care less about learning or helping others and more about advancing their own ideas and making money.

When Power Is More Important Than Honesty

What didn’t happen may be the most damaging thing about the Hardman case. Even though there is a lot of proof and internal audits, Hardman hasn’t had any major problems at work. Instead, she is still praised in small groups of influential people. Time magazine even named her one of the “100 Most Influential People.”

In this case, DEI fame acts as a shield, which is a very bad thing. People who build a name in the DEI circle are almost impossible to catch, even when they are. It becomes more important to have influence than to be honest.

This is made clear by Carl: “There is no accountability when wrongdoing fits with the dominant ideology.” The system looks out for its own.

A Case Study of Conservative Resistance: Trump’s Change of DEI

The Trump government was one of the few in politics that stood up to the DEI regime directly. Trump’s team got rid of mandatory DEI training programs and limited hiring based on race through executive orders and changes to government policy. Many of these acts were influenced by Carl’s book The Unprotected Class. They were a major turning point in the fight against ideological monopolies in education and government.

Carl is happy about these moves because he sees them as essential to the structure of the game. He said, “We gave institutions a reason to think again.” “All of a sudden, putting DEI into place without thinking had a political and legal cost.”

Some conservative lawyers are now going even further and saying that DEI practices often break both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This constitutional basis gives anti-DEI reform a strong base that could change the way people are hired and how institutions work all over the country.

Financial Sustainability vs. Sending a message of virtue

One of the most shocking things I learned from Carl’s interview was how he looked at elite institutions that freely admit to giving up money to show they care about DEI. For example, Harvard is said to have thought about giving up billions of dollars in funds to keep its DEI programs going.

Some people on the left might praise this kind of moral absolutism, but Carl says it can’t last in the long run. His point was that “no institution, no matter how rich, can afford to lose billions to support a bad idea.” “You can already see the cracks.”

Even big businesses are starting to feel the pain. Companies that used to be proud of their DEI credentials are now breaking their promises because investors want better returns and public trust is falling. While DEI might look good in a news release, it doesn’t always look good on a balance sheet.

Changing the name of the government: putting old wine in new bottles

Many institutions are quietly giving the same ideological projects new names, even though DEI is getting flak for it. For example, it is said that the University of Michigan has reorganized its DEI buildings without changing the people who work there or their goals.

Carl says that this strategy is just a way for institutions to cheat. “The name doesn’t matter if the people don’t change.” The people who built these ideological empires need to be fired, not just moved to a different office with a different name, for real change to take hold.

Fundamentally, for conservatives to understand institutional change, people must also change. Laws and culture come after people, but people come before both.

Making Reform Stick: Loss of Jobs and Money

Carl suggests a tough, two-pronged plan to make DEI change stick. First, organizations that act unethically should lose grants, funding, and donor support, which costs money. Second, people who are caught breaking professional rules should be fired, not moved to a different job.

These are not mean steps; they are important ones. If there aren’t any real results, reform is just a show. Carl is clear on what he thinks: DEI must be taken down for a price. People should no longer be punished with a slap on the hand.

The Long War Ahead: There Will Be Resistance

Carl warns that the war against DEI is far from over, even though conservatives have had some success. He warned that the bureaucracies behind DEI would not go away easily and said, “We are in for a decade of hand-to-hand ideological combat.”

These organizations have a lot of money, political clout, and a strong belief system. They have friends in the government, the media, and academics. But they have a deadly flaw as well: they depend on people being lazy. Since more light is shining on their insides, they become more easily hurt.

The goal for Republicans is clear. The fight for America’s cultural institutions needs to go on outside of Washington, D.C., in places like school boards, business boardrooms, and university senates as well.

Getting back to merit, accountability, and honesty

People in the U.S. who care about merit, responsibility, and intellectual honesty should pay attention to Jeremy Carl’s shocking interview. DEI is no longer a tool for justice; instead, it has become a cover for crooked ideas. It helps the strong, punishes those who disagree, and weakens the institutions it says it wants to protect.

The right should not back down. Too much is at stake. The very heart of American schooling, government, and society as a whole is in danger. We need to take down the DEI industrial complex one brick at a time and replace it with a system that rewards achievement instead of activism.

It will be a long journey, but the goal is clear: bring back sanity, protect honesty, and fight for a future where accountability is not a choice but a must.