In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, this paper reexamines the politics of diversity and affirmative action. Exploring legal constructions and three core dimensions of diversity—structural, interactional, and viewpoint—the study identifies three perverse outcomes of the prevailing “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) paradigm in American higher education. These include suppression of viewpoint diversity, feelings of reverse victimization due to antagonistic framings of identity, and suboptimal cognitive outcomes for minorities. Next, the paper analyzes interview and observational data from a faith-based Texas university to closely examine the process of college diversity policymaking. The main finding is that risk-averse college administrators succumb to the omnipresence of DEI as an institutional norm, even when they prefer to balance organizational mission and laws in devising diversity policy. An additional analysis of online diversity content from four strategically selected universities in Texas reveals specific discursive markers that perpetuate ideological DEI norms.

鉴于最近最高法院对学生公平招生诉哈佛/北卡罗来纳大学的裁决，本文重新审视了多样性和平权行动的政治。该研究探讨了法律建构和多样性的三个核心维度——结构性、互动性和观点——确定了美国高等教育中盛行的“多样性、公平性和包容性”(DEI)范式的三个反常结果。其中包括压制观点多样性、由于对抗性的身份框架而产生反向受害感，以及少数群体的次优认知结果。接下来，本文分析了德克萨斯州一所信仰大学的采访和观察数据，以仔细研究大学多样性政策的制定过程。主要发现是，规避风险的大学管理者屈服于无处不在的 DEI 作为一种制度规范，即使他们更愿意在制定多元化政策时平衡组织使命和法律。对德克萨斯州四所战略选择大学的在线多样性内容进行的额外分析揭示了延续意识形态 DEI 规范的特定话语标记。