Trigger warning for those who might faint to learn obvious things.
Christopher F. Rufo
@realchrisrufo
BREAKING: Following my reporting, Harvard has deleted its discriminatory faculty hiring guide from its website. The guide recommended monitoring applicants by race, favoring "women and minorities," and sending white men to the back of the reading list--violating civil rights law.
The Trump administration has escalated its battle with Harvard University, freezing all future grants and threatening to strip the school's tax-exempt status. In response, Harvard has adopted some conciliatory measures-- rebranding its DEI office and cancelling its racially segregated graduation ceremonies--but, behind the scenes, the university's discrimination machine continues to operate at full capacity.
We've obtained a trove of internal documents that reveal Harvard's racial favoritism in faculty and administrative hiring. The university's DEI programs are more than "unconscious bias" training. They are vectors for systematic discrimination against disfavored groups: namely, white men. As one Harvard researcher told us, "endless evidence" suggests that the university continues to discriminate against the supposed oppressor class in hiring and promotions.
For years, Harvard's DEI department has explicitly sought to engineer a more racially "diverse" faculty pool. The university-wide Inclusive Hiring Initiative provided "guidelines and training" for those involved in the hiring process and was explicitly tied to Harvard's DEI goals. The stated mission of the initiative is to "[i]nstill an understanding of how departments can leverage the selection process" to build "an increasingly diverse workforce."
In another hiring guide, "Best Practices for Conducting Faculty Searches," the university recommends several discriminatory practices. At the beginning of the hiring process, Harvard instructs search committees to "ensure that the early lists include women and minorities" and to "consider reading the applications of women and minorities first." The university counsels that committee chairs should "continually monitor" the racial composition of the candidate list and, as they narrow it down, "attend to all women and minorities on the long list."
Harvard deliberately factors race into the hiring process. The university gives committee chairs privileged access to "self-identified demographic data, including gender, race, and ethnicity" and encourages chairs to "use this information to encourage diversity in the applicant pool, long list, and short list." Harvard admits that some of its hiring programs have explicit "placement goals" for women and minorities--which, despite the university's denial, function as a soft quota.
In the past, the university has made extensive use of DEI statements--a "required qualification for all position descriptions and job postings"--and university-supplied "diversity-related sample interview questions," which effectively filtered out candidates who did not adhere to the principles of left-wing racialism. Though Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences officially discontinued its use of mandatory DEI statements last year, the university continues to promote non-mandatory diversity statements for faculty positions and includes language about "diversity, equity, and inclusion" as guiding principles.
...
Harvard's discriminatory programs are not limited to faculty hiring. According to one of the internal documents we obtained, the university has adopted explicit racial hiring goals for administrative and support positions under the guise of affirmative action. For various divisions and occupations within the school, Harvard lists the percentage of each workforce that belongs to a "protected class," as well as target goals. For example, the university declared a goal of increasing the share of minorities in one department's alumni affairs office nearly sixfold, and of raising the share of female assistants in the School of Public Health to more than 90 percent.
90% women hires to 10% male hires is equality? And note this isn't some temporary remedy; this is the ultimate goal that they want to keep forever. They want to get women up to 90% of their workforce and keep it there.
"Employers seldom set goals like these if they don't intend them to be acted on," Heriot said after reviewing the document. "These particular goals are hilarious," she added. "Harvard has a few job categories that are already female dominated, sometimes with over seventy percent of its employees in those categories being female. Rather than being concerned with why more men aren't applying, Harvard sets a goal to make these job categories even more female dominated."
...
Harvard, asked whether it still operates these programs, did not respond. The only major change to the university's faculty-hiring process of which our source was aware was the above-mentioned repeal of mandatory DEI statements at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
From two weeks ago: Harvard's own internal investigation found rampant antisemtism at Harvard, not just in the student body, but in the faculty.
Harvard University, in the midst of its funding fight with the Trump administration, released its long-awaited anti-Semitism report on Tuesday. It provides a scathing account of life at the Ivy League institution in the wake of Oct. 7, finding that "politicized instruction" in four Harvard schools "mainstreamed and normalized what many Jewish and Israeli students experience as antisemitism."
The report raises particular concerns with the Graduate School of Education, T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Divinity School, and Medical School, four schools that the Trump administration also targeted for "egregious records of antisemitism or other bias." At those schools, Jewish and Israeli students were routinely ostracized and subject to instruction "that effectively made a specific view on the Israel-Hamas conflict a litmus test for full classroom participation," according to the report.
In one example, a "Pyramid of White Supremacy" graphic disseminated to students in a required School of Education course stated that those who oppose the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement are engaged in "coded genocide." That portion of the pyramid was just one step removed from "overt genocide," which included the KKK, "lynching," "burning crosses," and "bombing black churches." When a Jewish student expressed concerns, the instructor did not remove the graphic from course materials and instead "referenced the 'land acknowledgement' made earlier in class."
The "Pyramid of White Supremacy" presented to some Graduate School of Education students.
The report details similar incidents at the School of Public Health, where Jewish students raised concerns over anti-Israel webinars only to be asked, "Who is more marginalized, Jews or Palestinians?" At the Divinity School, Jewish students were subject to "the embrace of a pedagogy of 'de-zionization'" in which instructors "attribute to Jews two great sins: first, in the Levant, the establishment of the State of Israel and the Palestinian Nakba; and second, in the United States, participation in White supremacy."
...
The report also includes anecdotes from students who were discriminated against for being Jewish or Israeli. In one case, a Jewish student planned to deliver a short speech at a Harvard conference describing "how their grandfather survived the Holocaust by migrating to the then-British Mandate of Palestine," now Israel. The conference's directors objected, saying the speech was not "tasteful" and was "inherently one-sided because it does not acknowledge the displacements of Palestinian populations." In another example, Jewish students said they were "routinely asked to clarify that they were 'one of the good ones' by denouncing the State of Israel and renouncing any attachment to it."
From Hot Air, the NYT says that some Harvard officials are starting to worry about criminal charges.
Harvard has basked in acclaim from White House critics for fighting back so far. After Mr. Trump threatened the school's federal funding, Harvard sued the administration, and legal experts said the university has a strong case.
But behind closed doors, several senior officials at Harvard and on its top governing board have acknowledged they are in an untenable crisis. Even if Harvard quickly wins in court, they have determined, the school will still face wide-ranging funding problems and continuing investigations by the administration.
Some university officials even fear that the range of civil investigations could turn into full-blown criminal inquiries.