Fighting unconstitutional DEI “loyalty oaths” at the University of California

In 2023, a number of universities employed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statement requirements as job screening tools. The University of California system had baked these statements into its hiring, to screen for applicants from minority backgrounds and those committed to a certain view of racial justice.

UC Santa Cruz was remarkably transparent about its use of DEI statements as a condition of employment, even spelling out how successful statements should include particular beliefs about race, fairness, and other controversial socio-political issues.

The requirement had nothing to do with an applicant’s qualifications and everything to do with their beliefs outside the job opportunity. Yet, candidates who didn’t comply wouldn’t even get through the initial screening process. Applicants were forced to agree—or must pretend to agree—thus forfeiting their right to free expression just to apply for a government job. This suppressed dissent, undermined free speech, and slowed the progress of science.

J.D. Haltigan knew he won’t get through UC’s DEI statement screen. J.D.’s work centers on child and adolescent mental and physical illness, but his accomplishments and qualifications were unlikely to be considered in his application for a psychology professor position at UC Santa Cruz.

J.D. posted his preferred DEI statement on his Substack newsletter. He expressed his commitment “to colorblind inclusivity, viewpoint diversity, merit-based evaluation, and … outreach to underrepresented groups in higher education.”

But he went further: “DEI statements have become a political litmus test for political orientation and activism that has created an untenable situation in higher academia where diversity of thought—the bedrock of liberal education—is neither promoted nor tolerated.”

J.D. refused to feign beliefs he didn’t share just to be vetted for a job. But he wasn’t willing to give up his career without a fight, so he took a big swing for liberty and his rights. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, J.D. fought back in federal court to defend his right to seek a university job based on his merits, not illegal application conditions.

UC Santa Cruz’s DEI declaration mandates were clearly unconstitutional. Government job seekers should be judged by their qualifications, not an ideological litmus test. Universities do not have carte blanche to engage in deliberate viewpoint discrimination through the hiring process.

A DEI statement requirement is alarmingly similar to the “loyalty oaths” required in the 1950s and 1960s amid the Cold War —most notably by the University of California system. The Supreme Court repeatedly struck down those oaths.

The case was mooted in 2025 when UC Board of Regents Chair Janet Reilly announced the decision to eliminate any required diversity statements for new hires.