#diversity statement

By: Colin Wright

Published: Apr 17, 2025

A high-stakes confrontation has recently erupted between the Trump administration and Harvard University, often considered America’s most prestigious academic institution. The administration, through the U.S. Department of Education, issued a series of sweeping demands aimed at reshaping Harvard’s governance, admissions, and hiring practices—threatening to freeze over $2.2 billion in federal funding if the university did not comply. These demands were framed as efforts to bring Harvard into compliance Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in institutions receiving federal funds, and Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on similar grounds. According to the administration, Harvard had failed “to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment,” among other concerns.

The initial list of demands, issued on April 3, called on Harvard to dismantle programs fostering antisemitism, enforce its own student conduct policies, adopt strictly merit-based hiring and admissions practices, eliminate all preferences based on race, sex, religion, or other immutable traits, and shut down its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. A second list, released on April 11, went further—demanding audits of admissions and hiring data, investigations into faculty plagiarism, and the elimination of “ideological litmus tests.” It also required that every department and teaching unit found to lack “viewpoint diversity” be restructured by hiring or admitting a “critical mass” of faculty and students with divergent views.

When Harvard President Alan Garber rejected these demands on April 14, citing violations of academic freedom and First Amendment protections, the administration responded by freezing the university’s federal funds. President Trump escalated the conflict the next day by threatening to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. On Truth Social, he wrote: “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

Garber and others framed these actions as a political power play, portraying Harvard as standing up to an administration wishing to enforce its ideology onto them. But this framing misses the mark. The Trump administration’s initial demands weren’t about imposing a competing ideology—they were, at least on their face, about removing ideology from university policy altogether. Asking Harvard to comply with federal law as a condition of receiving taxpayer dollars is not unreasonable.

However, while the first round of demands focused on removing bias, the second veered into troubling territory. The call to assess and rectify viewpoint disparities introduces a paradox: to achieve ideological balance, Harvard would need to actively recruit individuals based on their political beliefs, a practice that violates the administration’s demand to eliminate “ideological litmus tests” and mirrors the very kind of affirmative action they oppose in racial contexts. This approach is not only impractical, it risks violating the principles of free inquiry the administration claims to defend.

As economist Thomas Sowell has long argued, disparities in outcomes—whether racial, ideological, or otherwise—do not automatically indicate discrimination. While it’s true that Harvard has discriminated on ideological grounds in the past, and likely still does, the appropriate response is to eliminate such discrimination—not to mandate proportional representation of political viewpoints. We rightly condemned Ibram X. Kendi’s assertion that “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Yet that is what the demand for viewpoint equity calls for.

If Harvard were to adopt merit-based hiring and admissions, as I believe it should, then whatever ideological distribution emerges should be accepted as legitimate. Forcing ideological diversity could lead to absurd scenarios, such as a biology department being compelled to hire Young Earth Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents to “balance” its evolutionary focus, even when such views lack scientific credibility. This would not only lower academic standards but risks creating a politicized environment where hiring decisions are driven by ideology rather than expertise, undermining the administration’s own stated goals.

Rather than submitting to either side’s ideological agenda, Harvard should publicly commit to merit-based hiring and admissions, free of both racial and ideological preferences. This would preserve its integrity without caving to external pressures to enforce any particular ideological outcome. Forcing ideological quotas erodes trust in academic institutions, stifles genuine debate by mandating artificial diversity, and invites government intrusion into areas where it truly doesn’t belong. It also risks driving away serious scholars who simply prioritize academic excellence over political signaling.

In short, the Trump administration is right to challenge race-based policies that violate the law and undermine merit. But it oversteps by attempting to micromanage ideological composition on campus. True intellectual diversity can’t be mandated from Washington. It emerges from a culture of open inquiry and fair processes that treat individuals as individuals—not as proxies for their race, sex, or political beliefs.

As Sowell reminds us, equality doesn’t mean equal outcomes; it means equal treatment. That principle should guide both federal policymakers and university leaders. And if we want our institutions to remain credible, we have to be willing to call balls and strikes on both sides.

==

You can't cure cancer with more cancer.

You can't solve DEI with more DEI.

Eliminate all race- and sex-based preferencing, eliminate "diversity statements" and all litmus tests. Fire the people responsible for implementing and enforcing these discriminatory policies, as well as anyone with a substantiated history of enforcing - or trying to enforce - their own ideological tenets (e.g. that sexism and racism are some kind of complex intersectional algebra). Make clear the standards and hold everyone to them equally.

Opinions in Oak Park, IL

With the criticism of Dan Moroney even coming from the Wednesday Journal it’s a wonder how anyone in Oak Park, Il can come to a compromise in regard to diversity and creating a statement on how to proceed with a plan of inclusion. But these are the people chosen by the residents of this village to lead and make the decisions.

Expenditures on Rush Oak Park’s revamped Emergency room plus a new six…

Diversity statement in Oak Park, IL how hard is it?

Regarding the diversity statement which Oak Park, IL is trying to create, it seems ridiculous that there would be such a debate. It is funny but not surprising that Dan Moroney would have some opposition to such a statement remember he was elected in his position by people in the village who feel just like he does. So there is opposition to “stopping the hate” in Oak Park, IL it is just that Dan…

This post originally appeared on Most Strongly Supported in 2015.

Everyone knows you need to write a personal statement when applying to law school, but did you know you might need to write a diversity statement too?

Before I share tips on how to write one, let’s first talk about the purpose of the diversity statement.

Good law schools want a rich learning environment for their students. A rich learning environment involves the inclusion of different perspectives, backgrounds, experiences, and philosophies contributing to the dialogue, debate, and discussion in each class. Good law schools recognize that having a diverse student body is a benefit to all law students (and to law professors as well). The diversity statement is one way to see if an applicant would contribute to a diverse 1L class, because the application form may not give the law school admissions committee enough information about the applicant’s background and diversity factors.

If you’re applying to law school, I highly recommend that you think hard about whether you have any diversity factors.

Diversity factors include, but are not limited to, the following: • Ethnic minority • Low-income childhood • Low-income now • First generation in your family to graduate from college • GLBTQ community • Non-traditional student (i.e., older student) • Single parent while attending college • Disabilities (learning, physical, mental) • Underrepresented religious affiliation • Immigrant • Foster child • Grew up in an unusual neighborhood, town/city, or country • Grew up with unique circumstances that are underrepresented in the law school’s student body

If you have any of these factors in your background, you should consider writing a diversity statement.

Most law schools’ application instructions state that the diversity statement should be submitted as an addendum and/or optional essay. If the school does not specifically ask for a diversity statement, contact the admissions office to see if they will accept one. Some schools would rather you incorporate your diversity factors into your personal statement, while others are open to it being a separate essay.

So, how do you go about writing a diversity statement?

First, I recommend reading some great diversity statements. Download my FREE Personal Statement Packet and read the four diversity statement samples included in it. You can get a good idea of how to approach and structure a diversity statement by carefully reading and analyzing these samples. Similar to the personal statement, the diversity statement is essentially a structured short story about YOU. Keep in mind, though, that your diversity statement is much shorter than your personal statement–it should generally be one page, double-spaced, with a 11- to 12-point font.

Second, read each of the diversity statements again and read the adjoining personal statements that go with them. Notice how the applicant’s diversity factor(s) might be mentioned in his or her personal statement, but they are covered in more detail in the diversity statement. I recommend that you do this. As law school officials always tell me, “Applicants need to self-identify!” And I would add, applicants need to self-identify in more than one place in their law school application.

Third, please remember as you’re writing your draft that the diversity statement should be focused generally on your family background and upbringing. If you start veering towards other stories about your life or career, or why you want to go to law school, know that you’re veering towards personal statement territory. Steer yourself back to focusing on your family background and upbringing.

Lastly, when you have a draft of your diversity statement that is ready for human consumption (usually your second or third draft), have several trusted and objective people review it. Look for patterns in the feedback given to you. If two people say the same thing, pay attention. Then revise, revise, revise until your diversity statement is the best that it can be.

PEG CHENG is the author of The No B.S. Guides for applying to law school and the founder of Prelaw Guru, where you can find law school admissions tips, videos, books, and more.

Everyone knows you need to write a personal statement when applying to law school, but did you know you might need to write a diversity statement too?

Before I share tips on how to write one, let’s first talk about the purpose of the diversity statement.

Good law schools want a rich learning environment for their students. A rich learning environment involves the inclusion of different perspectives, backgrounds, experiences, and philosophies contributing to the dialogue, debate, and discussion in each class. Good law schools recognize that having a diverse student body is a benefit to all law students (and to law professors as well). The diversity statement is one way to see if an applicant would contribute to a diverse 1L class, because the application form may not give the law school admissions committee enough information about the applicant’s background and diversity factors.

If you’re applying to law school, I highly recommend that you think hard about whether you have any diversity factors.

Diversity factors include, but are not limited to, the following: • Ethnic minority • Low-income childhood • Low-income now • First generation in your family to graduate from college • GLBTQ community • Non-traditional student (i.e., older student) • Single parent while attending college • Disabilities (learning, physical, mental) • Underrepresented religious affiliation • Immigrant • Foster child • Grew up in an unusual neighborhood, town/city, or country • Grew up with unique circumstances that are underrepresented in the law school’s student body

If you have any of these factors in your background, you should consider writing a diversity statement.

Most law schools’ application instructions state that the diversity statement should be submitted as an addendum and/or optional essay. If the school does not specifically ask for a diversity statement, contact the admissions office to see if they will accept one. Some schools would rather you incorporate your diversity factors into your personal statement, while others are open to it being a separate essay.

So, how do you go about writing a diversity statement?

First, I recommend reading some great diversity statements. Download my FREE Personal Statement Packet and read the four diversity statement samples included in it. You can get a good idea of how to approach and structure a diversity statement by carefully reading and analyzing these samples. Similar to the personal statement, the diversity statement is essentially a structured short story about YOU. Keep in mind, though, that your diversity statement is much shorter than your personal statement–it should generally be one page, double-spaced, with a 11- to 12-point font.

Second, read each of the diversity statements again and read the adjoining personal statements that go with them. Notice how the applicant’s diversity factor(s) might be mentioned in his or her personal statement, but they are covered in more detail in the diversity statement. I recommend that you do this. As law school officials always tell me, “Applicants need to self-identify!” And I would add, applicants need to self-identify in more than one place in their law school application.

Third, please remember as you’re writing your draft that the diversity statement should be focused generally on your family background and upbringing. If you start veering towards other stories about your life or career, or why you want to go to law school, know that you’re veering towards personal statement territory. Steer yourself back to focusing on your family background and upbringing.

Lastly, when you have a draft of your diversity statement that is ready for human consumption (usually your second or third draft), have several trusted and objective people review it. Look for patterns in the feedback given to you. If two people say the same thing, pay attention. Then revise, revise, revise until your diversity statement is the best that it can be.

PEG CHENG is the author of The No B.S. Guides for applying to law school and the founder of Prelaw Guru, where you can find law school admissions tips, videos, books, and more.

Diversity statements may not apply to everyone. Your LSAT score will still reign supreme over your law school application. Make sure you can do your best by using the best LSAT prep. Schedule a call with us to find what LSAT prep course works best for you!

I am a first generation Indian-American with uncommon family history and cultural make-up.

  My father, originally from Pakistan, was given away for adoption at a young age because his family could not afford him. His father had been a freedom fighter with Gandhi, and though he helped gain India independence, he lost his farmland subsistence when he and his family were forced to emigrate from Pakistan. My Father was adopted in Mumbai.

  When my father was eighteen, his biological father had a heart attack and died on a train. It took authorities a week to find my grandfather and pronounce him dead. At that time, Jawaharlal Nehru had already been the first Prime Minister of India. Nehru had shared a jail cell with my grandfather when they were incarcerated for civil disobedience. Nehru gave my father’s family a huge pension, and this is how my dad came to the U.S.

  My mother is from south India. It is rare in India for a southern and northern Indian to wed, because of social stigmas around the “lower castes” of the south.

  My parents met in the United States and I was born here.  Since English was my parent’s only common language (My mother speaks Tamil and my Father speaks Hindi), English is the only language I have learned from them.