Christian Universities Are Still Bowing to DEI

Christian universities face an unprecedented challenge. Even as many secular institutions pull back from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, religious colleges are advancing them, adopting initiatives that contradict their founding principles. The shift has been swift, sweeping, and, in some cases, startling. Schools that once stood apart in faith now appear almost indistinguishable from their mainstream counterparts. Instead of refusing to bow, they have surrendered to the same patterns of cowardly conformity.

This alteration in values is happening across denominations and sects. Catholic universities that survived centuries of external pressure are now voluntarily adopting hostile ideologies. Protestant colleges founded by denominational pioneers embrace frameworks that undermine their theological commitments.

DEI doesn’t enter Christian universities under its own name. It arrives cloaked in theological robes. DEI doesn’t enter Christian universities under its own name. It arrives cloaked in theological robes. Administrators recognize that a direct appeal to progressive ideology would likely repulse donors, parents, or alumni who expect adherence to the faith. So they borrow the language of Catholic Social Teaching (CST), invoking “human dignity,” “solidarity,” and “the common good.” At Notre Dame, for example, diversity offices and initiatives are consistently cast as seamless extensions of CST. The suggestion is unmistakable: To resist DEI is to resist Catholic tradition itself.

Administrators recognize that a direct appeal to progressive ideology would likely repulse donors, parents, or alumni. The strategy is clever precisely because CST commands deep respect. Even Catholics divided on politics typically affirm CST as a framework for moral life. Who would dare argue against “dignity” or “solidarity”? Yet the meaning is quietly distorted by leftists. In Catholic teaching, dignity comes from the imago Dei—the belief that every human being is created in the image of God, unique and unrepeatable. DEI turns that on its head, treating dignity as something tied to group identity, as if worth depends on belonging to the right social category. Catholic Social Teaching traditionally understands solidarity as shared responsibility across differences. DEI, by contrast, thrives on division, slotting people into boxes of “oppressor” and “oppressed.” CST points toward communion. DEI drives us toward fracture. The distortion may look subtle, but it is profound.

The overlap is no accident. By invoking CST, administrators launder ideology through theology. The faithful hear “dignity” and think of Genesis. The administrators mean quotas. They hear “solidarity” and think of John Paul II in Poland. The administrators mean “privilege workshops.” This is how secular frameworks get baptized with Christian vocabulary. It works because most in the pews or the classroom are not equipped to parse the difference.

But one needn’t possess a doctorate in theology to see what Villanova is up to. The university emphasizes the “dignity of each person” in its official statements while simultaneously tying itself to an unwavering public commitment to DEI. The contradiction is impossible to miss. On the surface, Villanova invokes Augustinian ideals of community, dialogue, and mutual respect. Beneath it, DEI drives the agenda, turning those virtues into vehicles for the logic of secular identity politics rather than the substance of Catholic anthropology.

Protestant institutions mirror these patterns despite their different theological roots. Wheaton College, for instance, maintains an office of “multicultural development” under the guise of biblical justice. At Calvin, “inclusion” no longer signals radical hospitality in Christ but radical diversity targets crafted by bureaucracy. In both cases, Christian language provides a halo for practices incompatible with Christian beliefs about the value of the individual.

And here the stakes become clearer. The federal government has ordered universities to dismantle DEI programs that openly discriminate. Yet many Christian schools have not complied. They have instead opted for cosmetic change. They preserve the ideology, change the label, and present themselves as obedient.

Belmont University in Nashville demonstrates the pattern. It markets itself as Christ-centered, but undercover recordings reveal what many suspected: Its DEI office never closed. It was simply renamed the Office of Hope, Unity, and Belonging—HUB. The label shifted. The mission did not. New-course proposals still require faculty to submit “Diversity Impact Statements” outlining how their classes serve “historically underrepresented populations,” according to reporting by Fox News. Internal emails make clear that the DEI faculty committee remains active. Publicly, Belmont denies any hidden agenda. Privately, faculty are told to carry on as before.

Across the country, Christian universities are quietly rebranding DEI under new titles—“Inclusive Excellence” or “Student Flourishing.” And Belmont is hardly alone. Across the country, Christian universities are quietly rebranding DEI under new titles—“Inclusive Excellence,” “Equity and Belonging,” or “Student Flourishing.” The labels shift, but the logic stays the same. Administrators know that open defiance invites federal scrutiny, so they retreat into euphemism, banking on the hope that parents, donors, and lawmakers won’t look too closely. This deception should alarm anyone who is serious about both faith and education. These schools preach truth from the pulpit but practice deception in the classroom. They present themselves as guardians of Christian formation but quietly adopt frameworks that erode Christian conviction. Belmont even claims that HUB was established to “inspire the campus community to fully live in light of Christ’s resurrection.” Here, faith itself is used as a tool to smuggle in ideology.

If Christian institutions want to embrace DEI, let them say so openly and face the consequences. No Christian university should be allowed to speak out of both sides of its mouth. If such institutions want to embrace DEI, let them say so openly and face the consequences. But to disguise it—to mislead parents, donors, and students—is not only cowardice. It is betrayal. Transparency is the minimum. Accountability is owed.

The choice before Christian universities could not be starker. They can return to their true mission: forming students in truth, virtue, and faith. Or they can continue playing linguistic games, shuffling vocabulary while entrenching ideologies that undermine their foundation. They cannot do both. The longer they attempt it, the clearer it becomes that their loyalties lie not with Christ but with the cultural fashions of the age.

This is the backdrop against which the Trump administration now operates. It holds a once-in-a-generation chance to rescue Christian higher education from ideological capture. That opportunity will not last forever, and it cannot be met with half measures. Swift, decisive action is required across multiple fronts.

Every university that accepts federal money must prove—not with platitudes, but with verifiable evidence—that orthodox Christian voices face no discrimination or retaliation. Federal grant applications should demonstrate real intellectual diversity in hiring, curricula, and programming. Any institution that censors, sidelines, or punishes Christian conviction should lose taxpayer funding. This includes historically Christian universities.

The Department of Education must also investigate schools that use racial preferences in admissions and hiring while hiding behind religious exemptions elsewhere. They cannot have it both ways. Religious protections should be defended against progressive litigation designed to force conformity through the courts.

Regional accreditors pose another threat. By demanding diversity statements and equity mandates, they effectively coerce Christian schools into betraying their foundations. Federal recognition should be stripped from any accreditor that elevates ideology over education. Accreditation must measure quality, not political loyalty.

Federal agencies must likewise stop requiring “broader impact” statements that function as mandatory social-justice pledges. Research funding should follow merit, rigor, and excellence—not compliance with ideological trends.

Christian universities serious about their mission must go further still. DEI cannot be reformed, renamed, or repackaged. It must be abandoned. DEI programs are fundamentally incompatible with Christian values and biblical truth. Real Christian community cannot be built on grievance and quotas. It must be forged through shared pursuit of virtue and truth.

The survival of Christian education now depends on courage. The survival of Christian education now depends on courage. Donors must redirect their giving away from compromised schools. Money follows mission, and if the mission is gone, so must the funding go. Parents and students must refuse to subsidize ideological capture with their tuition dollars.

This is not about nostalgia or prestige. It is about whether the next generation will receive genuine formation in Christian truth or thinly veiled indoctrination.

The stakes are high. Gospel fidelity or progressive conformity. Truth or submission. The time for hedging is over. The future of Christian higher education hinges on choices made now, choices that will echo for years to come.

John Mac Ghlionn is a psychosocial researcher and essayist. His work has been published by the New York Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Newsweek, National Review, and the Spectator (U.S.). He covers psychology and social relations and has a keen interest in social dysfunction and media manipulation.