Law Professor Exposes Diversity's Evidence Gap

For decades, institutions demanded diversity — then refused to prove it worked. Now corporations are going dark, colleges are dismantling DEI offices, and a law professor is asking: if diversity is our strength, where's the data?

Fortune 500 companies have retreated from public documentation of diversity practices by 65 percent in one year, according to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's 2026 Corporate Equality Index. Only 131 firms now disclose DEI metrics publicly, down from 377 in 2025. The legal industry shows similar opacity, with dozens of major law firms opting out of diversity surveys amid increased regulatory scrutiny.

Into this institutional vacuum steps Dr. James Allan, the Garrick Professor of Law at Australia's University of Queensland. His essay, first published in The Spectator Australia on March 19, 2026, and later appearing on The Daily Sceptic, delivers a scholarly detonation of what he calls "unrelenting" DEI orthodoxy. "Those spouting these 'diversity is a panacea' nostrums never cash out the claim," Allan writes. "They never tell us precisely how 'diversity' is making society better or wealthier or more unified. We are all just supposed to take it on faith."

The Australian law professor's critique lands as verified data exposes a fundamental contradiction in higher education's diversity claims. A January 2026 analysis of Federal Election Commission filings shows 97.6 percent of Yale professor political donations went to Democrats, with zero percent supporting Republicans. The Buckley Institute's December 2025 faculty political diversity report found 27 of 43 undergraduate departments at Yale have no Republican faculty members, creating a 36-to-1 Democrat-to-Republican ratio across the Ivy League institution.

Allan observes this ideological conformity extends beyond Yale. "Diversity always and everywhere boils down to a diversity of skin pigmentation or type of reproductive organs, or other favoured inherited group characteristic," he writes. "But it never, ever involves pushing for a diversity of political or worldview opinions."

That contradiction now defines a growing institutional retreat. More than 300 U.S. colleges and universities have "rooted out" DEI programs since 2025, according to Trump administration education officials. The Department of Education reports 175 institutions removed or restructured DEI offices, while 31 universities ended partnerships with The Ph.D. Project following discrimination allegations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture eliminated a $300 million DEI program for nonprofits and tribes.

The collapse echoes globally. Spain implements 40 percent gender quotas for corporate boards starting this year. NHS England enforces equality targets under Britain's Public Sector Equality Duty. Yet no data shows these compliance-driven policies improve organizational outcomes or service quality.

Allan's analysis reveals what he calls the movement's "class blind spot." Working-class white men represent the only demographic systematically excluded from DEI's promised benefits, he argues. "When some people now claim that working class white boys are the most discriminated-against group, that sure looks true to me if we're talking about who gets special scholarships, who gets special support, who gets quiet, unspoken hiring help," Allan states.

MIT Board Member John Chisholm echoes the critique in recent analysis. "Colleges have adopted an extremely narrow approach, concentrating on biological physical characteristics like skin color and gender identity, while ignoring many other characteristics important in instilling true 'diversity' into the academy," according to The Independent's October 2021 coverage of John Chisholm, MIT Board Member.

The Australian academic connects contemporary DEI enforcement to what he sees as elite failures on pandemic lockdowns, transgender ideology in schools, and energy policy. "You're wondering what the odds are that these same people are likely to be right about anything," Allan writes. "Hint: Not bloody high."

Allan describes Australian universities operating through implicit quotas rather than explicit mandates. "They look at a dean's department, measure the percentage of favoured — only favoured — groups in society at large and then in the department, and then make the dean's performance review's success depend on getting a match," he explains. "The incentives are brutal but indirect."

The consequences extend beyond campus. Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson warns of workplace impacts. "LGBTQ+ workers are experiencing increased hostility in companies that abandon commitments to diversity and inclusion that are both lawful and a benefit to the bottom line," Robinson states. The foundation reports that 54.2% of workers in organizations scaling back DEI initiatives experienced stigma and bias, compared to 24.9% in organizations maintaining inclusion practices.

Yet Allan maintains the movement's fundamental flaw remains its refusal to engage with evidence. "The amount of genetic diversity needed to produce healthy kids is pretty tiny," he notes regarding biological arguments for demographic diversity. "Just anyone outside the immediate family will do. Same culture? Tick. Same commitment to Western civilisation? Tick. Same belief in free speech and the role of women? Tick again."

He contrasts this with military effectiveness. "On the other side of the equation we know that the best fighting units are often drawn from the same geographical area," Allan writes. "Closer bonds mean a greater willingness to put your life on the line for someone else."

The tension now defines institutional life: organizations that once evangelized diversity's benefits no longer defend its efficacy — they simply enforce compliance. As corporations withdraw transparency and colleges dismantle offices, the public increasingly questions what evidence ever supported what Allan calls "totalitarian state levels of propaganda."