PROF. GARRETT: Leftists’ victimhood mentality persists as DEI retreat accelerates

In the DEI industrial complex, those who benefit from preferential policies are encouraged to perpetuate the illusions of victimhood, while those disadvantaged by these policies are dismissed as complicit perpetrators.

A former tenured professor at Bakersfield College, Matthew Garrett is the founder of Renegade Institute for Liberty, an organization dedicated to promoting intellectual diversity. He launched the California Curriculum Center shortly after retiring from academia to offer nonpartisan curricula for independent educators and charter schools. 


On the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration, symbolizing a rejection of progressive ideology, the American Historical Association held its annual meeting in New York, featuring a panel titled “Marginalized Scholars at Midcareer.” Predictably, the panel showcased tenure-track scholars from elite institutions like New York University and Princeton who paradoxically cast their identity advantages as burdens, perpetuating the narrative of victimhood.

This delusion—that “diverse” scholars at prestigious universities are victims in a system obsessed with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)—is mind-boggling. The privilege of color in academia starkly contrasts with the treatment of those deemed insufficiently “diverse.” For context, just last week Campus Reform reported on a California professor openly celebrating the absence of white students as part of efforts to “diversify our faculty, staff, and student body.”

How does higher education remain so devoted to this topsy-turvy ideology, where beneficiaries feign victimhood at the expense of insufficiently “diverse” candidates? Amidst growing rejection elsewhere, why does this bankrupt ideology persist? Having endured discriminatory DEI initiatives firsthand, I believe its persistence can be traced to three groups: the devout, the profiteers, and the complicit.

[RELATED: PROF. GARRETT: Why I’m helping California move beyond DEI]

The current iteration of DEI is rooted in “anti-racism,” a concept popularized by Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist (2019), which recasts reverse discrimination as a moral obligation. For the devout, anti-racist DEI is more than a policy—it is a quasi-religious crusade. Immune to reason and resistant to evidence, they imagine themselves as moral arbiters, dismissing dissent as proof of racism or fragility. As recently as 2020, progressive Californians rejected affirmative action, but the devout press forward undeterred, convinced of their righteousness.

DEI also sustains a lucrative industrial complex. Administrators, consultants, and faculty profit handsomely from its expansion. Private and public institutions funnel millions into DEI programming. For example, the University of Southern California’s Race & Equity Center charges tens of thousands of dollars for DEI webinar subscriptions, while my own institution paid an “expert” $180,000 for just 51 hours of training—an astronomical $3,500 per hour. Entire departments are dedicated to advancing DEI, creating employment opportunities for its adherents while inflating administrative budgets.

Even as corporations like McDonald’s, Walmart, and Amazon curb their DEI programs, others, like Costco and Apple, continue to fund the DEI profiteers. Higher education, in particular, remains devoted to this costly agenda. As Campus Reform recently reported, anti-racist programming continues unabated at numerous institutions nationwide.

[RELATED: Apple could become latest big business to reduce DEI with upcoming shareholder proposal vote]

At the heart of this conundrum lies the pernicious concept of performative victimhood, allowing identity-based grievance to function as both a status symbol and a currency. While genuine discrimination and hardship undoubtedly exist in society, within academia the scales tip decisively in favor of so-called “marginalized” groups. These individuals enjoy priority in hiring decisions, grant funding, conference panels, and more, leveraging their identity for career advancement, financial gain, and social clout.

As beneficiaries of “anti-racist” DEI policies frame their professional advantages as burdens, the true victims are merit-based applicants who face real barriers in academia. The paradox of the DEI industrial complex lies in its incentives: those who benefit from preferential policies are encouraged to perpetuate the illusions of victimhood, while those disadvantaged by these policies are dismissed as complicit perpetrators of unseen but systemic discrimination.

Lastly, there are the genuinely complicit—the silent majority who, out of fear or apathy, go along with the DEI agenda. Some offer hollow endorsements, while others remain silent to avoid professional or social backlash. They bite their tongues and nod in agreement, convinced that dissent would lead to retaliation or no meaningful change. This quiet acquiescence, whether driven by indifference or self-preservation, is enough to sustain the destructive framework of performative victimhood and reverse discrimination.

The persistence of DEI programming in higher education, despite its rejection elsewhere, highlights a troubling posture. Universities continue to abdicate their commitment to excellence, preferring instead to privilege imagined victims. To restore integrity, legislatures and private corporations must continue to defund the DEI industrial complex and demand the prioritization of merit over grievance-driven agendas. Only by cutting the purse strings and rejecting grievance currency can we restore public trust to higher education. 


 Editorials and op-eds reflect the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of Campus Reform or the Leadership Institute.