Recently, Stanford professor Hakeem Jefferson responded to a piece published in The Stanford Daily by Stanford professor Johnathan Berk. In his response, he criticized Berk’s assertion that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) seemingly has no place at Stanford. Jefferson’s response was refreshing because it brought factual reasoning to the now ongoing debate around DEI on Stanford’s campus.

Articles like Berk’s, conversations in classrooms and public sentiment around DEI have certainly become more prominent in the media, an increase perhaps aided by the Trump administration’s vehement opposition to DEI as both a concept and an institution. However, much of this public sentiment — Berk’s argument being a prime example — lacks even basic factual reasoning to bolster its claims.

In Berk’s piece — as Jefferson points out — he completely misunderstands the effects of the G.I. Bill, despite referencing it to support his argument. Berk cites the G.I. Bill to convince readers that it was foundational in providing “bright young minds from all strata in society” the opportunity to attend private universities like Stanford. Jefferson refutes this, firmly asserting that the bill overwhelmingly benefited white Americans — not “all strata of society.”

The lack of factual grounding continues when Berk argues in Jefferson’s words that “poor white students are now disadvantaged by an admissions system supposedly more taken by the stories of Black poverty than white poverty.” Jefferson doesn’t just disagree with the claim, he calls it what it is: false and deeply misguided. Most critically, Berk provides no evidence whatsoever to support it.

In truth, Jefferson is doing what any scholar should do when analyzing another’s argument: he attacks the logic, scrutinizes the evidence and considers the context from which those claims arise. Meanwhile, Berk — and many others now emboldened to speak out against DEI — rely on skewed interpretations of history, cherry-picked anecdotes and most importantly, a fundamental misunderstanding of what DEI actually is to argue that Stanford need not champion it.

Berk isn’t alone in making unfounded claims or misrepresenting DEI altogether. Weeks ago, The Stanford Daily published a story interviewing students on campus about their thoughts on DEI. One individual who requested anonymity (for good reason) boldly asserted that DEI was “a way of lowering standards for certain people.” She continued, “If we want society to function the best, it’s necessary to have competent people.” 

What evidence is there that standards are lowered for “certain people” when DEI is applied? I unfortunately cannot answer this, since my peer cannot reference anything to bolster her claims. At the same time, she beats the dead horse argument that by somehow having DEI programs, we are inevitably favoring incompetent people over competent people. Our anonymous friend is surely entitled to her opinion, but it lacks tangible evidence. 

Worse, she attempts to “clarify” her stance by saying, “I’m not coming from a place of hate… you should put in the work to succeed instead of having to rely on your background.” What she really meant was that the benefactors of DEI are not working as hard as “everyone else,” and therefore they can bypass any and all inhibitors to social mobility — whether systemic or not — by simply working a tiny bit harder. Such an assertion reminds us that even Stanford’s “best and brightest” — despite receiving an elite education — can still cling to ignorant and unfounded beliefs. Her opinion, I bluntly assert, is likely acquired via thorough indoctrination into the American fairytale of social mobility without barriers.

While Berk and our anonymous classmate are only two voices in this larger debate, their unfounded reasoning reveals a deeper problem: some vocal opponents of DEI on campus often come armed with little factual understanding of what DEI is, what it aims to do or why people believe it’s necessary in the first place. And this is precisely what makes meaningful conversations around DEI so difficult. Those most opposed often enter the discussion with subjectively skewed views — views they seem to hate DEI for yet cannot justify with anything beyond personal discomfort. Perhaps the real roots of their discomfort lie in biases and prejudices they’d rather not confront.

We go to Stanford University. However, my peers somehow cannot fathom that rigorous engagement with our ideas is required — opinions supported not by how we feel but by what is true and what can be verified as true. How can conversations on DEI be productive when factual reasoning underlies so few of the arguments made? How can this conversation move forward if all we’re working with is subjectivity and blatant misrepresentations of DEI? 

I will assert here and always that we need conversations on DEI. Those conversations empower individuals to understand what the other side is thinking, how they form their arguments and where compromise is possible (or where disagreements may simply remain). That’s the work we should be doing on this campus, and it’s work I support.

However, both a professor and a student at this university have recently made claims that are either blatantly false or rooted in profound misunderstandings of DEI. That leaves very little room for productive conversation. Jefferson could’ve spent his time defending the values of DEI; instead, he was forced to fact-check Berk line by line because Berk did not grant him the privilege of a debate grounded in reason.

If conversations on this matter are to continue, there must be a mutual respect for facts — facts presented with the necessary context to bolster one’s position and, yes, to challenge others. That is what will lead to real, meaningful conversations about DEI. That is what can move us past circular debates over what we think DEI is and whether or not it belongs on campus. Whether our campus is ready for this level of discourse is another question entirely. But if Berk and the anonymous student are any indication of the broader opposition, then we may be too busy fact-checking to move any argument forward.

So, no — we do not, on face value, have a “DEI problem” at Stanford. Stanford’s weak-willed administration has already demonstrated its willingness to compromise diversity in admissions. What we do have is a problem with the conversations surrounding DEI, and unfortunately, it’s the loudest and least factually sound voices that are leading the debate.

Jaylon Jones ’26 is an undergraduate studying political science and history.