Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now…

Check out the new merch! — Donate…

Sign up for our email list… Stay on the bleeding edge… 

DEI has always been a scam, and the receipts keep piling up. For years, the academic world has pretended that DEI hires represent some amazing new standard of excellence. But thanks to the tireless work of reporters like Chris Rufo, that illusion is crumbling under the weight of plagiarized dissertations, stolen passages, and fraudulent credentials.

READ MORE: Exclusive: Meet the TDS Cult ‘Expert’ Behind the FBI’s Lawfare Machine

Yes, it’s starting to crumble, but DEI was built on decades of solid left-wing foundation. To say it’s magically gone because of one Supreme Court ruling is a fairy tale. The rot is still very much alive.

Revolver:

Further down the prestige ladder, at public colleges in Republican-controlled states, a similar shift is taking place. In these states, the push is coming from Republican lawmakers, who have belatedly recognized that DEI is a hiring program for people who hate them. In some states, lawmakers have ordered universities to abolish diversity statements, but the most on-the-ball initiatives have made sure to actually fire DEI staffers and shut down their departments. At the University of Texas-Austin, forty people lost their jobs after the school’s DEI office got the axe. At the University of Florida, officials fired 13 administrators in response to a DEI ban.

The signs are all promising, to say the least. But a crucial question remains: Will all of this work?

We can hope, of course. Harvard and MIT are both trendsetters for the schools just below them on the prestige ladder. Odds are good that, at least at America’s top schools and any public college in a red state, much-hated “diversity statements” will soon be a thing of the past.

But don’t get too thrilled just yet. Abolishing diversity statements is not the same thing as abolishing the diversity cult itself. The situation in academia is improving in some respects, but for now it remains a matter of tiny marginal improvements to a vast, utterly rotten edifice. The state of affairs in academia today is such that broad swathes of entire disciplines—not just fake DEI disciplines—have become utterly corroded by DEI.

The triumphalism over vanishing diversity statements operates on the assumption that said statements are a primary driver of anti-white and anti-male discrimination in academia. In reality, though, these statements are simply the product of a DEI-obsessed culture that exists on a deeper level. Mandatory statements during the hiring process make it easier and smoother to reject white male applicants, but the intent to reject them as often as possible was there long before. This discriminatory intent means that DEI (or woke, or race communist, pick your term of choice) priorities now pervade almost every aspect of the academic sausage-making process—to a degree that would shock most Americans. Unless this process is reformed (or, more likely, torn out at the root and replaced), universities will continue their downward spiral toward useless mediocrity.

You can read the entire piece here:

The Secret George Floyd Effect: DEI Rot in Universities Is Deeper and Darker Than You Imagine

But Rufo’s latest piece reveals a very disturbing trend.

His research shows black women in academia, particularly in DEI-related fields, are plagiarizing at rates way higher than other groups. It’s not a theory. It’s his data. And it confirms what many already suspected: the DEI machine isn’t just lowering standards; it’s erasing them completely.

Rufo and his team looked at scholars of all races, and the pattern was painfully clear: black females plagiarized more often than their peers. But instead of addressing the misconduct, the press spun a new narrative, calling plagiarism investigations “racial profiling.” Rufo’s response was hard truth: plagiarism is an individual act, and the data shows who’s doing it.

City Journal:

At first, the prestige press ignored these academics’ misbehavior. Then, under enormous pressure, they acknowledged it, couched with caveats and excuses. And finally, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they adopted the Left’s defensive counter-narrative, claiming that exposing plagiarism in academia is a form of “racial profiling” designed to “bully and intimidate” “Black women.” They based this accusation on the racial identities of our targets. But I specifically tasked my researchers with investigating potential plagiarism by Harvard scholars and administrators of all racial groups.

The initial evidence, though not systematic, pointed to an inconvenient result: a ponderance of plagiarism by academics who specialized in “diversity.” Nevertheless, the Harvard student newspaper, mimicking the legacy press, cried foul. It called the investigation a “witch hunt,” and suggested that I was “[t]argeting [b]lack [f]aculty.” Jennifer Hochschild, a white professor of African-American studies, deemed our reporting a “targeted” attack on black women. The existence of racial disparities in our plagiarism reporting, they believed, was prima facie evidence of racist intent. But we did not “target” black women.

We examined Jennifer Hochschild’s work, for example, and did not find plagiarism. (In fact, Hochschild’s failure to plagiarize is contributing to the white-black plagiarism disparity at Harvard, and by her logic, is bolstering a white-supremacist narrative.) We simply found that individuals in this subgroup copied-and-pasted more than did individuals in other subgroups.

Plagiarism is not committed by racial categories, but by individual scholars who choose to break the rules of academic honesty. Our critics have clung to the mistaken notion that disparities can only result from discrimination.

But in truth, numerous potential explanations exist for group inequalities. Racial and ethnic disparities are the rule, rather than the exception, in everything from income to education to athletics to ownership of nail salons and dry cleaners.

Chris’s research seems to hold water. Especially when you look back at this 2024 article.

Even Harvard’s student paper couldn’t ignore it. Christina J. Cross became the fourth Black female scholar at Harvard accused of plagiarism. She joins Claudine Gay, Sherri A. Charleston, and Shirley R. Greene, all deeply embedded in DEI work. And these were not light accusations by any stretch. We’re talking about lifted dissertations, stolen methodology sections, and word-for-word theft. It’s embarrassing, and the media knows it.

The Harvard Crimson:

Harvard Sociology assistant professor Christina J. Cross was accused of plagiarism in an anonymous complaint to Harvard’s Office of Research Integrity, conservative activist Christopher F. Rufo reported in the City Journal — the fourth Black woman at Harvard who studies race or social justice to be accused of plagiarism.

The allegations against Cross mark the fourth in a rapid series of anonymous plagiarism complaints of varying severity lodged against Black women at Harvard amid a growing right-wing attack against diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education.

Cross follows former Harvard president Claudine Gay; Sherri A. Charleston, Harvard’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer; and Shirley R. Greene, a Title IX coordinator at the Harvard Extension School, who have all faced plagiarism allegations since December.

Though the allegations against Cross are the weakest of the four, plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey said, Rufo’s posts on X received more than a million views and were amplified by X owner Elon Musk.

In a series of posts on X Wednesday and Thursday, Rufo tied the pattern of allegations — which he has been pivotal in amplifying — to his broader crusade against diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at Harvard and across higher education. He also suggested that Black scholars who study race and diversity may have a higher proclivity toward plagiarizing.

The allegations against Cross include 11 instances in her dissertation and five instances in a 2018 paper in the journal Population Studies in which she is accused of lifting language from other scholars. These instances include descriptions of datasets and methodology, as well as cases in which Cross uses identical language to scholars whom she cites but does not quote.

When you build a system on race quotas instead of merit, you don’t get excellence. You get shortcuts. You get copy-and-paste scholars. You get academic fraud hiding behind identity politics. And the worst part is that it doesn’t just trash the reputation of places like Harvard. It drags down the very people DEI claims to be helping.

There’s now concrete proof that black women, who overwhelmingly benefit from affirmative action, disproportionately need a handout to succeed.

READ MORE: Tributes pour in for Scott Adams…

Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now…

Check out the new merch! — Donate…

Sign up for our email list… Stay on the bleeding edge… 

NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — BLUESKY