Harvard prez Claudine Gay’s exit is just the first step in saving our universities

Harvard President Claudine Gay has resigned, likely as the result of pressure from the Harvard Corporation.

She was appointed largely because of her deep commitment to the diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracy, which has dominated Harvard and other universities since the 2020 killing of George Floyd.

Accordingly, she is only a symptom, albeit an important one, of the destructive impact DEI is having on universities throughout the country.

Unless the DEI bureaucracy is dismantled, universities will continue their decline as institutions of objective learning.

Over the last several years many universities have changed their mission from objective, fact-based scholarship to “social justice.”

But it turns out social justice for some has resulted in social injustice for others.

It has been a zero-sum game in which African Americans have benefited at the expense of Asian Americans, Jewish Americans and other out-of-fashion minorities.

Indeed, the DEI bureaucracy has been a major source of, and stimulus for, the recent increase in antisemitism on campuses.

Central to the DEI ideology has been a phony academic construct called “intersectionality,” under which the world is divided into oppressors and oppressed, based entirely on identity politics.

The oppressed can do no wrong, while the oppressors can do no right.

White males, especially Jewish ones, are accused of being the primary oppressors.

It is acceptable therefore to silence and marginalize them while giving loud voice to the oppressed.

The power of these oppressors, DEI says, is enhanced by meritocracy.

Judging individuals by their hard work and accomplishments, according to the racist underpinnings of identity politics, guarantees the continued empowerment of the oppressors.

So meritocracy must go, along with grades and other criteria of individual accomplishment.

Meritocracy must be replaced by equity, which evaluates individuals based on characteristics beyond their control, such as race and sexual identity.

The Harvard Corporation, which made the mistake of appointing President Gay in the first place, comprises largely DEI supporters, as do the boards of many other universities.

But Gay’s forced resignation demonstrates that these elite boards need not be given the final word.

Universities consist of more than the current faculty, student body and boards.

They are made up of large numbers of alumni as well as future students.

And since universities represent our future leadership, the general public also has a stake in who governs them.

So the success of these “outsiders” in forcing Gay’s resignation is an important first step in changing the ill-conceived direction in which many of today’s universities are heading.

If the process ends with Gay’s resignation, nothing much beyond symbolism will have been accomplished.

But if it marks the beginning of a fundamental reconsideration of the universities’ mission, it will have accomplished much.

The next, and more important, step must be the complete dismantling of the DEI bureaucracy.

The good news is most of these newly hired bureaucrats do not have tenure and do not have the qualifications to become professors.

They can easily be fired, at the savings of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The bad news is they have become a powerful force at many universities.

It will take courage and resolve to get rid of them, but it must be done.

The DEI mindset must be replaced by the prioritization of meritocracy, broadly defined beyond mere grades but based on hard work and accomplishment.

Grades, however, are an important component of any meritocracy, and they must be restored along with other methods of evaluation.

We must return to a time when we all shared Martin Luther King’s dream of a society, as well as a university, where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

The short presidency of Professor Gay may be a turning point in the history of American academia, but only if we take it to the next step and learn the appropriate lessons from her mistakes — and of those who appointed her.