Diversity, equity, and inclusion are innocuous, even admirable, terms that represent a seemingly worthy agenda. The goal of DEI , according to its proponents, is to ensure that people from underprivileged backgrounds receive ample access to opportunities, particularly within the education establishment. But in practice, DEI is wreaking havoc on college campuses by discouraging speech and undermining concepts such as merit, fairness, and equality of opportunity.

I’ve seen its effects firsthand at Texas A&M University School of Law, where I won a 1L Diversity Council Essay Contest Scholarship and am a 1L Federalist Society representative — a surprising combination in today’s political climate.

This year, the Texas A&M Federalist Society chapter has hosted three events that garnered blowback from the student body. First, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart spoke about his experience and work on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case before the Supreme Court. Second, lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom and First Liberty Institute spoke about the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, which the high court heard late last year. And third, former Georgetown University Law Center professor Ilya Shapiro lectured on academic freedom in light of his experience with “cancel culture.”

None of these events were designed to offend anybody. Rather, they were meant to offer Federalist Society members and the student body at large the opportunity to hear prominent speakers discuss relevant topics.

Yet, with all three events, students attempted to wield DEI principles as a cudgel to try and shut down or discourage speech with which they disagreed.

With the Dobbs event, students complained that Stewart’s mere presence was enough to make them feel unsafe. Because Stewart helped overturn Roe v. Wade, they claimed his speech was hurtful toward women and minorities because minorities are more likely to seek abortions.

At our event on religious liberty, students again complained that ADF’s presence on campus constituted an act of violence against LGBT students since ADF promotes traditional Christian values. Blowback over this event lasted for more than two weeks. The administration even held a town hall to hear students’ concerns about the presence of a “hate group” on campus, which culminated in offended students comparing conservatives to the Ku Klux Klan and demanding that the university stop admitting them altogether.

Then, at Shapiro’s lecture, students claimed to be outraged that a “racist” with controversial views about DEI had been invited to campus during Black History Month.

While the outrage surrounding the Shapiro event was minor compared to the first two examples, all three illustrate how DEI is being used to shut down or discourage speech.

To its credit, Texas A&M Law promised it would not bar the Federalist Society from inviting certain speakers. I also would venture to say that the campus culture at Texas A&M is better than the culture at most law schools. Nevertheless, my experience tracks with a recent report from Boise State University professor Scott Yenor, who found that DEI has made the campus culture at Texas A&M less welcoming and more toxic.

Rather than recognizing that people are products of their unique backgrounds and experiences, DEI groups people together and assigns them moral value based on their immutable characteristics. This is wrong. And when activists use this artificial moral value as a smokescreen to police speech, campus culture suffers.

Universities, particularly law schools, should encourage dialogue and the open exchange of ideas. They should be a “safe space” for everyone to share their thoughts — not just for people who agree with the liberal orthodoxy in academia.

Jonathan Voos is a student at Texas A&M University School of Law and a Federalist Society representative. He has been published in the Washington Examiner, Lone Conservative, and the Austin College Acumen.