Some watchdogs and critics are calling for a formal audit of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s faculty hiring practices, alleging the university is effectively continuing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) priorities despite an official ban on mandatory DEI statements.
At a recent webinar hosted by the National Association of Scholars, William Frezza, founder of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, criticized how some departments at MIT are reportedly using “broader impact statements” in hiring as a backdoor to continue screening applicants on DEI criteria. Frezza argued that although MIT officially ended mandatory DEI statements in hiring, these broader impact statements serve a similar purpose — signaling ideological expectations under different language.
Frezza called for trustees or independent investigators to audit DEI spending and influence, noting an estimate that MIT still spends about $25 million annually on DEI-related personnel. He contended that many individuals previously tasked with DEI now hold roles with titles like “well-being,” “community,” and “engagement,” suggesting continuity in ideology rather than reform.
A source within MIT told The College Fix that after President Sally Kornbluth announced the ban on diversity statements in May 2024, certain departments merely rebranded the requirement as broader impact statements — which applicants still interpret as DEI criteria due to the wording in job postings. That source stated that candidates “know that universities like MIT support DEI,” meaning the shift in terminology did not materially change applicants’ understanding.
MIT leadership pushed back on these claims, emphasizing the university’s commitment to merit-based hiring and defending its culture as one that values excellence without restricting openness to people from diverse backgrounds. An MIT spokesperson noted the elimination of DEI statements in hiring and pointed to other actions, like reinstating the SAT in undergraduate admissions, as evidence of focusing on merit.
The debate reflects a broader conservative critique that institutions may comply with bans on DEI in form but not in substance, suggesting a need for transparency and oversight — especially at elite universities whose policies influence broader trends in higher education.
