University of California drops diversity statements in hiring amid threats of Trump cutting funding

Fox News - Mar 21st, 2025

The University of California (UC) has decided to eliminate the requirement for diversity statements in its hiring practices, joining other prestigious institutions like MIT and the University of Michigan in scaling back on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. This decision was communicated by UC's provost Katherine S. Newman, who emphasized that while diversity-related accomplishments can still be referenced voluntarily, mandatory diversity statements may detract from an applicant's core expertise or experience. This development follows the Trump administration's warning that schools with DEI policies risk losing federal funding, as evidenced by the recent $400 million grant cut to Columbia University over anti-Israel protests and perceived antisemitism.

This move by UC is part of a larger trend among elite universities responding to political and financial pressures, as the Trump administration signals potential consequences for those maintaining DEI policies. UC President Michael Drake has also announced a hiring freeze and other cost-saving measures in anticipation of possible state budget cuts and federal funding challenges. The decision underscores the ongoing debate surrounding diversity initiatives in higher education and reflects broader national conversations about the role of such policies in university settings.

Trump Administration Dei Initiatives Federal Funding University Of California Columbia University Michael Drake Diversity Statements Katherine S. Newman

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The story provides a timely and relevant overview of the University of California's decision to eliminate diversity statements from its hiring process, a topic of significant public interest. It accurately reports the university's rationale and contextualizes the decision within broader federal policy debates. However, the article could benefit from a more balanced presentation by including perspectives from affected stakeholders, such as faculty and students, and by offering more transparency regarding the sources and processes involved in the reported decisions. The reliance on a single primary source could be mitigated by incorporating additional viewpoints and expert analyses to enhance the article's credibility and depth. Overall, the article is clear and accessible, but it could further engage readers by exploring the broader implications and controversies surrounding the topic.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on the University of California's decision to drop diversity statements from its hiring practices, as confirmed by multiple sources. The article cites a letter from UC's Provost, Katherine Newman, explaining the rationale behind the decision, which aligns with available information. However, the claim regarding the Trump administration's influence on this policy change through threats of funding cuts requires further verification, as the article does not provide direct evidence linking these threats to UC's decision. Additionally, the mention of Columbia University's funding cut due to antisemitism protests is reported accurately, though it is not directly related to UC's policies.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of the University of California and the Trump administration's stance on DEI policies. It lacks viewpoints from faculty or student bodies who might be affected by these changes, which could provide a more balanced view of the implications. The article focuses on administrative decisions and federal policies without exploring the broader context of diversity and inclusion debates in higher education.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting the main points in a logical sequence. The language is straightforward, making the content accessible to a broad audience. However, the piece could benefit from clearer distinctions between different universities' actions and the specific impact of federal policies, which are somewhat interwoven without distinct separation.

Source quality

The story relies on statements from credible sources such as UC's Provost and Board of Regents Chair, providing a solid foundation for its claims. However, it predominantly uses Fox News Digital as its primary source, which may introduce a potential bias. Additional perspectives from other news outlets or independent experts could enhance the reliability and depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the decisions made by the University of California, including the potential implications of federal funding threats. However, it lacks detailed explanations of how these decisions were reached, the methodology behind the reported figures, and any potential conflicts of interest. Greater transparency about the sources of information and the processes behind policy changes would improve the article's credibility.