Good morning,
This week, MI scholars explored how higher education institutions are working to preserve DEI—even as public opinion and policy turn against it.
In City Journal, senior fellow John Sailer exposes the widespread use of “diversity checks,” which allow university administrators to exert quiet, but sweeping, control over faculty hiring. Sailer’s extensive original reporting—drawing on hiring plans, grant proposals, progress reports, and internal emails—shows how administrators at institutions like the University of Texas and the University of Illinois can delay or cancel job searches if the applicant pool isn’t demographically “diverse” enough. The result is a system that raises serious legal questions and consolidates enormous power in the hands of ideologically motivated bureaucrats.
For the Civitas Institute at the University of Austin, legal policy fellow Tal Fortgang offers a wide-ranging look at the state of the DEI wars in higher education. The anti-DEI movement, he notes, has racked up important wins: abolishing mandatory diversity statements, shuttering DEI offices, and defeating race-based hiring policies. But, Fortgang argues, winning the rhetorical battle is not the same as rooting it out of the institutional culture of universities, HR departments, and elite media. To succeed, the movement has to mature. It must build a coherent alternative to DEI ideology—a vision of justice rooted in merit, public purpose, and institutional integrity. That means cultivating new leaders, reshaping incentives, and offering a moral language that can rival DEI’s superficial appeal.
Meanwhile, on the legal front, MI senior fellow and director of constitutional studies Ilya Shapiro argues in the Washington Examiner that reports of a “crack-up” in the conservative legal movement are greatly exaggerated. As he notes, the Supreme Court just wrapped a term full of major victories for conservatives—including rulings on gender medicine, administrative law, and judicial overreach. Despite rising tensions between President Trump and the Federalist Society, Shapiro contends that the movement remains intellectually vibrant and institutionally strong. Trump’s frustrations with the courts may be real, but the judges confirmed during his first term—many of whom reflect the core legal principles long championed at Federalist Society events—continue to reshape American law. The conservative legal movement isn’t fracturing—it’s governing.
Finally, in the first installment of MI’s new Tech and the City series, fellow Danny Crichton examines the U.S. government’s recent acquisition of a single “golden share” in the U.S. Steel Corporation. As part of the deal allowing Nippon Steel to buy the company, the government was granted a unique class-G share—giving it the power to appoint a board member and veto certain corporate decisions. As Crichton notes, this is unprecedented. Unlike the government’s temporary stake in General Motors during the financial crisis, this golden share confers direct control—and it does not even have an economic component. The move, Crichton argues, could set a dangerous precedent for American capitalism.
Nick Saffran
Senior Editor
