Last fall, Clemson University officials announced the end of a sordid list of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) “commissions.” But news of DEI’s death at the college may be premature: The school’s board of trustees hired a new president with a checkered past of applying racial preferences.
Are the trustees and administrators serious about civil rights and abolishing DEI’s racism? Or are they going to ignore examples of progressive racial bias?
This week, Clemson’s board named Kevin Guskiewicz as president despite Guskiewicz’s history of on-again, off-again support of DEI. Lawmakers and taxpayers should follow Guskiewicz’s policies carefully.
Investigative reporting from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal found that Guskiewicz advanced DEI-focused programs when he was hired as the University of North Carolina’s Chancellor in 2019. Through a Freedom of Information Act filing, Martin Center researchers found that Guskiewicz asked UNC provosts and department officials to “submit measurable deliverables” on DEI prior to a meeting in summer 2020.
Palmetto State lawmakers and taxpayers should hope college officials are aware of the civil rights violations from this racist dogma. In 2025, Heritage Foundation research documented that Clemson administrators continued to allow DEI programs on campus. School officials responded with a statement in September that they were sunsetting a slate of committees based on racial preferences. Clemson was one of nearly 50 universities the U.S. Department of Education cited that year for “race-exclusionary practices.”
And yet, the school’s board of trustees selected a president who, as UNC chancellor, supported the hiring of Nikole Hannah-Jones, the editor of the New York Times Magazine’s“1619 Project.” The project was a revisionist history of the U.S. that centered America’s story on slavery and racism, with no redemption in sight. After its publication, historians and intellectuals including Allen Guelzo, Sean Wilentz, and the late civil rights leader Robert Woodson criticized the project for inaccuracies.
When Guskiewicz moved to Michigan State University in 2024, though, school personnel closed several DEI programs during his tenure. In July 2025, school officials announced that job candidates would no longer be required to submit DEI statements, and school administrators would not require DEI statements as a condition of promotion for existing faculty and staff. Regardless of Guskiewicz’s prior approvals of racial preferences, university officials abandoned the practices.
Still, a quick review of MSU’s website finds that the Spartans operate a DEI office. DEI materials are readily available from the school library system, and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources has a video statement in favor of DEI.
College administrators around the country are struggling to rid campuses of radical racial dogma. For every school that announces the end of DEI—such as the University of Michigan’s closure of its DEI office last spring—others are renaming their activities to avoid detection. The Heritage Foundation report that reviewed Clemson’s DEI work provides a list of other schools, including George Mason University and Princeton University, where school personnel are either subtly or not-so-subtly continuing DEI initiatives.
The Education Department’s ongoing examinations of colleges that allow antisemitic activities on campus and that post DEI statements are a warning to universities. Critics claim federal lawmakers are micromanaging schools, but evidence from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard(which was combined with a case against the University of North Carolina) shows how colleges engage in discrimination. The violent riots and encampments at other schools in recent years are still more examples of DEI run amok. If school trustees and state lawmakers will not enforce civil rights laws, federal policymakers are next in line.
Just before and after the Students for Fair Admissionsdecision, state lawmakers began adopting provisions that reject racial preferences. Legislators in states such as Texas, Florida, and West Virginia prohibit the use of taxpayer spending on DEI offices and staff positions.
South Carolina lawmakers have considered statewide prohibitions, but the proposals have stalled. In 2024, Coastal Carolina University adopted a policy statement that rejects the use of DEI statements as a condition of hiring or promotion, offering lawmakers a roadmap to draft proposals. Students and taxpayers weary of the abuse of civil rights—and wary of Clemson’s new president—will thank them.
