Facing Forward, Failing Backwards From Justice
Harvard’s DEI Posturing and Quiet Dismantling of Black Justice Initiatives isn’t an isolated case.
In an era where universities claim to oppose authoritarianism and defend diversity, we must look beyond press releases and posturing to the gentle brutality of institutional action. Harvard University publicly opposed Trump's rollback of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies last week, framing itself as a fearless defender of progressive values. Meanwhile, it dissolved its own Slavery Remembrance Program-discharging dedicated staff and outsourcing reparative accountability.
This paradox is not accidental but deliberate, being hand in hand with the logic of Technocratic Neo-Apartheid (TNA): playing opposition publicly while having destructive institutions behind closed doors.
Harvard’s Pattern of Contradiction
Harvard’s entanglement with slavery is not new. Founded in 1636, the university benefited directly and indirectly from slavery through donations, labor, and intellectual complicity in racial pseudoscience.
The Harvard & the Legacy of Slavery Report (2022) explicitly acknowledges:
“Harvard leaders, faculty, staff, and benefactors enslaved people... For nearly 150 years... slavery shaped Harvard University in profound ways.”
In 2022, Harvard launched a $100 million Legacy of Slavery Initiative. But in January 2025, it abruptly laid off the staff of its Slavery Remembrance Program, outsourcing their work to a genealogical nonprofit with no historical ties to the descendants they were serving.
Vincent Brown, a prominent historian and committee member, resigned in protest. He called the decision:
“Vindictive and wasteful... The decision to outsource and dismantle the team reveals a troubling pattern of administrative interference and disregard for meaningful reparative work.” Source: Inside Higher Ed
Earlier, two co-chairs of the memorial committee also resigned, stating:
“We cannot continue our work when the institution consistently prioritizes optics over meaningful community engagement and accountability.” Source: [The Times, 2024]
The DEI Double Standard: Inclusion Without Justice
DEI initiatives at elite universities might well serve as symbolic placeholders rather than vehicles for actual structural transformation. They tokenize Black faculty and students, emphasize trainings and optics, but rarely redistribute power or wealth.
When DEI becomes the ceiling of racial justice, it functions as a controlled release valve - a way to manage demands without addressing the systems that created inequality in the first place.
Case in point: In 2024, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences dropped diversity statement requirements from job applicants, responding to political pressure.
Source: [Chronicle of Higher Ed, 2024] https://www.chronicle.com/article/harvard-faculty-drops-diversity-statements-from-job-requirements
This step undermines even symbolic commitments to equity and reinforces how fragile DEI frameworks truly are when confronted with power.
Technocratic Neo-Apartheid in the Academy
What we are seeing is Technocratic Neo-Apartheid (TNA) in action-where bureaucracy, policy, and institutional logic mask ongoing systems of racial exclusion.
By laying off Black staff engaged in reparative research, outsourcing their work, and justifying it through cost-efficiency and governance language, Harvard reasserts control while distancing itself from responsibility. This isn’t just neglect-it’s strategic erasure.
Similar moves have happened elsewhere:
University of North Carolina (UNC) System: In April 2024, the UNC Board of Governors voted to eliminate DEI language from its policy manual, citing a desire for “institutional neutrality.” This decision led to the closure of DEI offices and the elimination of 59 positions across the system. At UNC-Chapel Hill alone, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion was dissolved, cutting 20 positions and saving nearly $5.4 million. Source: [Axios, Sept 2024]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): In May 2024, MIT eliminated diversity statements from its faculty hiring process. President Sally Kornbluth explained the move by saying, “We can build an inclusive environment in many ways, but compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression, and they don’t work.” The decision was endorsed by all six academic deans. Source: [New York Post, May 2024]
San Francisco State University (SFSU): In 2016, the College of Ethnic Studies reported a persistent $200,000 annual deficit due to chronic underfunding. Faculty and students protested the university’s attempts to slash programs, arguing that ethnic studies should not be on the chopping block in a city and institution rooted in racial justice activism. Source: [Inside Higher Ed, 2016]
California State University (CSU) System: Despite a statewide mandate for ethnic studies curriculum, implementation has stalled due to budget shortfalls. Advocates say the absence of earmarked state funding undermines the ability to offer comprehensive ethnic studies programming. Source: [Jerusalem Post, 2023]
Contingent Faculty and Black Scholars: Black scholars are overrepresented among non-tenure-track and adjunct faculty-positions that offer low pay, little job security, and no long-term academic protection. These roles are often used to extract Black labor without offering institutional investment in Black scholarship. Source: [Union Penumbra, 2023] https://unionpenumbra.org/article/the-exploitation-and-marginalization-of-contingent-and-adjunct-labor/
Institutional Disrespect and Epistemic Erasure: Even when Black scholars receive national recognition, they are frequently marginalized within their home institutions. They face daily microaggressions, unacknowledged contributions, and systemic exclusion from leadership and decision-making. Source: [Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 2023] https://www.diverseeducation.com/opinion/article/15659455/only-within-their-own-institutions-are-black-scholars-without-honor
These aren’t isolated cases. They are systemic echoes of the same design: resist change publicly, reinforce exclusion privately. They reflect the embedded logics of an academy built to survive critique, not to transform under it.
Who Benefits, Who Is Erased?
Harvard keeps its reputation as a “progressive” institution.
Donors and political allies remain unprovoked.
The $50 billion endowment remains untouched.
Meanwhile, African and African American communities lose programs built to honor their history and fight for restitution.
These contradictions are not mistakes. They are the intended result of institutions that prefer appearance over transformation.
A Call for Reparative Rebuilding
We must stop confusing and conflating diversity statements with justice, and token hires with healing. Harvard-and institutions like it-must be called to:
Redistribute wealth and land
Fund and protect Black scholarship
Be accountable to descendant communities
Restore programs they dismantle
Stop outsourcing memory and responsibility
Reckoning Beyond Public Relations
We will remember who Harvard laid off.
We know who was erased.
We will not be distracted by performative posturing and politicking or PR consultants.
True resistance demands redress-not representation.
True healing demands repair-not performance.
This isn’t just about Harvard. This is about every institution that claims to resist white nationalism while quietly protecting white capital, whether in response to administrative coercion or on its own.
The era of symbolic DEI must end.
It’s time for liberation-centered, reparative academic justice.
This piece is part of our Technocratic Neo-Apartheid (TNA™) research series. Stay tuned for more interventions and tools to challenge the architecture of academic complicity.