Regent Jordan Acker is echoing the conservative playbook—using the tired excuse of “wasteful spending” to undermine Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts at the University of Michigan. He claims that despite $250 million spent on DEI, minority enrollment hasn’t significantly increased. But instead of pushing for stronger action or deeper investment, he’s targeting the very infrastructure meant to drive change.

Let’s be clear: the “cost and effectiveness” argument is a classic right-wing tactic. Conservatives have long used budget concerns as a smokescreen to gut programs they were never invested in to begin with, or actively worked to oppose. This is especially the case for programs that serve marginalized communities. It’s not about the money. It’s about the politics.

Acker criticizes administrative spending, claiming the focus should be on “real change, not paperwork.” But dismantling the staff, offices, and structures that build equity isn’t reform—it’s sabotage. You don’t shrink a movement for justice and call it strategy.

We see what’s happening: Acker is laying the groundwork to cut DEI entirely while pretending to “improve” it. That’s not leadership. That’s betrayal.

Regent Mark Bernstein’s actions reveal exactly how bias and double standards operate at the University of Michigan—especially when race and power are involved.

In 2024, Bernstein led the charge to fire Rachel Dawson, a Black DEI director, over disputed allegations that she made antisemitic remarks at a conference. Dawson denied the claims. Initially, the university planned to require antisemitism and leadership training—standard practice in similar cases. But Bernstein dismissed that as a “mockery” and demanded her immediate firing. By December, she was gone. No due process. No consistency. Just political pressure—and punishment.

Meanwhile, Carin Ehrenberg—a white donor and advisory board member—was caught on video verbally harassing Arab and Muslim students at a pro-Palestinian protest. She called them “terrorists,” “rapists,” and “murderers,” even grabbing a student’s phone. It was all recorded. And yet: no dismissal. No investigation. No consequences. Just a watered-down statement about “restorative measures” and “emotional tensions.”

Bernstein, who had no problem intervening in Dawson’s case, said nothing. His silence is loud.

Let’s be clear: a Black woman was fired over disputed words. A white donor was protected after clear, filmed hate speech. That’s not just inconsistent—it’s blatantly hypocritical. And it reveals a deep rot in how power, money, and identity shape justice at this university.

Bernstein didn’t “defend Jewish students”—he exploited a controversy to take out a DEI leader while ignoring blatant Islamophobia from someone with institutional clout. If your outrage only shows up when it’s politically convenient—or when a Black woman is the target—you’re not fighting hate. You’re reinforcing it.