DEI and Marxism Destroy Merit and Excellence
On December 11, 2024, The Wall Street Journal published an article by Professor Perry Link of the University of California, Riverside (UCR), revealing his persecution by university leadership for expressing dissenting views. This troubling case sheds light on a broader issue: the ideological rigidity of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement and its unsettling resemblance to Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in China, a period I personally experienced.
While they may seem well-intentioned, these policies can erode institutional integrity and perpetuate inefficiency.
A couple of years ago, while serving on a faculty search committee, Professor Link objected to prioritizing a candidate’s race over academic qualifications. In an email, he described a Black applicant as “lively and charming—and yes, Black, which is great—but I can’t say that I found his sophistication and experience up to the level of our top candidates.” He argued against making race the “overriding criterion,” stating that it was unfair to more qualified candidates and did not serve the university’s mission of excellence. This dissent sparked severe repercussions.
UCR leadership accused Professor Link of violating DEI principles, specifically of discrimination and making “adverse and unwarranted comments about the race, gender, or national origin of the candidate pool.” Punishments included barring him from serving on search committees, salary reductions, and potential termination. These actions starkly contradict the essence of diversity, which should encourage the free expression of differing views. Instead, UCR’s leadership punished Professor Link for upholding academic integrity.
Professor Link’s distinguished career further underscores the absurdity of these charges. He taught at Princeton University, where I was a student at the time. I loved listening to his public lectures and chatting with him. A lifelong advocate for universal human rights, he was blacklisted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for exposing its oppression. For UCR to label him a racist is both baseless and ironic.
DEI’s Roots in Marxism
The ideological roots of DEI can be traced to Marxism, which centers on class struggle and economic inequality. Marxism divides society into two classes — the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (workers) — and advocates for redistributing resources to dismantle class hierarchies. While Marxism failed disastrously in practice, its emphasis on rectifying systemic inequality resonates with DEI’s focus on race, gender, and identity categories.
Yet, policies rooted in identity traits risk fostering the same inefficiencies and injustices that plagued Marxist regimes. Just as Mao’s Cultural Revolution used class background as a primary metric for advancement, DEI initiatives prioritize identity over merit.
As someone who grew up in China during Mao’s Cultural Revolution in the 1970s, I witnessed firsthand the consequences of ideological conformity.
Mao demanded ideological purity and unwavering loyalty to his vision. My father, Li Honglin, and his superior, Tian Jiaying, were officials within the Maoist system. Unfortunately, they retained some degree of independent thinking, which led to persecution by Mao and his allies. My father was imprisoned, and Tian Jiaying committed suicide before he could be arrested.
As Professor Link mentioned in his article, the reason he was severely punished was not only because he expressed differing opinions, but more importantly, because “I didn’t bend. To the machine, that was more offensive than the original affront.” The CCP has a similar policy: “Leniency to those who confess, severity to those who resist.”
Mao allocated resources based on “class” rather than competence. Workers, peasants, and soldiers were promoted to important positions and admitted to universities.
For instance, Mao handpicked Wu Guixian, a female textile worker, to be a Vice Premier of China simply because of her proletarian background, not her qualifications. She was put in charge of the Ministry of Health. In one widely circulated story, during a meeting with a foreign delegation, a representative praised the legendary Ming dynasty doctor Li Shizhen. Vice Premier Wu Guixian turned to an aide and asked, “Has Dr. Li been invited to this meeting?”
At Peking University, which I entered after Mao’s death in 1978, the 1975 and 1976 cohorts of worker-peasant-soldier students included some who lacked basic literacy skills and could not even write a simple letter home.
These policies not only damaged institutions but also placed unprepared individuals in positions of responsibility, setting them up for failure.
Similarly, DEI initiatives that prioritize identity traits over merit risk similar outcomes. While they may seem well-intentioned, these policies can erode institutional integrity and perpetuate inefficiency. Equity should help people of lower socio-economic status to level the playing field, not artificially make the results uniform, which not only stifles excellence and fairness but leads to poor service for society.
DEI advocates who don’t see the danger in this should think about how DEI activists act in their personal lives. When DEI advocates face critical decisions — such as choosing a surgeon or a pilot — do they prioritize competence, or the “correct” physiological traits? To ask the question is to answer it.
READ MORE from Shaomin Li:
The Chinese Model’s Challenge to the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics
The Third Plenary Session of the CCP Failed
Shaomin Li is a Professor at Old Dominion University.
The post DEI and Marxism Destroy Merit and Excellence appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.