DEI Efforts Persist At University Of Michigan Despite Shutdown Pledge
The University of Michigan publicly signaled a major rollback of its diversity work when leadership announced plans to dismantle central offices, but many colleges and departments have kept pushing DEI ideas forward. What looked like a clean break on paper did not translate into an immediate, uniform change on the ground. Staff, faculty and student groups moved quickly to preserve programs, trainings and policies that they view as integral to campus life.
In March 2025, then-president Santa Ono said the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion would close. That announcement created a clear marker: a stated intention to end formal institutional structures tied to DEI. Yet the practical reality across the campus is messier and more decentralized than that single pronouncement implied.
Where The Plans Meet Practice
Many academic units had already woven inclusion efforts into operations, so removing a central office didn’t automatically remove the work itself. Departments still run workshops, search committees still ask about inclusive pedagogy, and student services continue programs aimed at underserved communities. Those activities persist because they are embedded in everyday practices rather than housed in a single bureaucratic box.
Some units have kept existing staff in similar roles under different job titles, while others moved programs into diversity-related centers that escaped the original cut. Funding for these activities often comes from a mix of internal budgets, external grants, and donor gifts, which makes a coordinated shutdown difficult. In short, decentralization has given the DEI ecosystem durability even when leadership signals change.
Faculty and administrators who favor inclusive practices argue that these efforts improve classroom climate, student retention and research collaboration. Critics counter that the persistence reflects a lack of accountability and that promises from top leadership should be honored transparently. The clash has left the campus divided and made the university a microcosm of national debates about diversity initiatives.
Operationally, the closure of central offices forced a patchwork response: some programs were absorbed into academic affairs, others migrated to student life, and a few were discontinued quietly. That fragmentation complicates any attempt to measure what remains and who oversees it. It also creates confusion for students and faculty about where to go for resources and grievances.
Beyond structure, the language of DEI survives in syllabi, hiring criteria and grant applications where explicit commitments sometimes carry institutional weight. Accreditation bodies, federal reporting requirements and philanthropic priorities can incentivize continued use of those frameworks. Even without a central office, compliance needs and external expectations keep the vocabulary and practices alive.
The situation raises questions about institutional honesty and governance. If leadership vows one thing but operations do another, stakeholders ask whether decisions are symbolic, strategic or simply logistically messy. That question matters to legislators, alumni and donors watching whether the university follows through on declared reforms.
Looking ahead, possible outcomes include tighter centralized oversight to enforce the closure, formal rebranding of functions, or a negotiated middle ground where certain programs are preserved with new accountability measures. Any durable solution will require clear policy, transparent budgets and a timeline for transition so the campus community knows what to expect. Without that, quiet continuations will likely outlast public promises.
For now, the University of Michigan demonstrates how institutional change often plays out in practice: messy, contested and full of local adaptations. Announcements from the top can set a direction, but the day-to-day choices of departments, donors and accreditation pressures frequently determine what actually survives. That uneven reality will keep the debate alive on campus and beyond.