My Journey: From Duke’s D&I Storm to a Quiet Shift
Dr. Kendall Conger recently put his voice into the mix through RealClearInvestigations, and his words hit close to home for me. I was thrilled when it became clear that the Duke University Health System had quietly pulled back from its loud “woke” stance on racism this year.
Why This Matters
- Fired for Diversity Battles: I was part of an internal resistance group that questioned the university’s aggressive diversity, equity, and inclusion push. The result? A sudden layoff.
- Surprisingly Quiet Turnaround: Though the institution never shouted it aloud, the shift was evident—less pressure, more open conversation.
- Personal Relief: Knowing that resistance efforts were no longer penalised felt like a weight lifted off my shoulders.
My Story in Two Sentences
When I joined the internal resistance to Duke’s D&I crusade, I expected backlash—and I got it. Now, hearing that the university quietly reversed its “woke” agenda, I’m glad to see that the change is real, if subtle.
Duke Health’s DEI Drop: The Inside Story
What’s Really Happening?
Imagine a giant organization rolling back its own banner. In 2021, Duke Health proudly proclaimed that racism was a “public health crisis,” promising “equity” as the cure. Fast forward to 2025, and the same banner has been flipped, replaced by “Leading with Heart: Rooted in Humanity.” The old slogan, “Duke Health Stands Against Racism, Bias, and Hate,” no longer appears on the website.
Why the Sudden Change?
- A federal civil rights lawsuit claims racially biased hiring and admissions.
- Last month, the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal funds, citing alleged improper use of racial preferences.
- Internal pushback and a growing backlash against DEI rhetoric.
Through the Author’s Eyes
After a decade at Duke, the author found themselves fighting the 2021 policy. The effort cost them the job of an emergency‑room physician, sparking a separate lawsuit. The narrative is aimed at preserving the memory of those who opposed the “madness” and the moral panic that swept the organization.
What Did They Call “Bias”?
At a physician meeting, the chief diversity officer spoke of “implicit bias.” The author, already stretched thin on weekends and homeschooling during the week, was shocked the university had shifted its cultural compass from admiration of Western civilization to a new disdain for “oppressive” versus “oppressed.” That dichotomy struck a chord.
“Who Thinks Like This?” The Author Asked
Immediately after, a reading of The Communist Manifesto filled the mind with class‑struggle imagery. The author drew a direct line: the diversity officer’s words echoed a century‑old political playbook, the same dramatic split between oppressor and oppressed that Marx had denounced.
Confronting the REDEI Mantra
The author tried to get evidence backing the claim that racism is a public health crisis:
- Asked the medical data support team—no data came.
- Reached out to the CMO—again, insufficient evidence.
- Consulted the Vice President—received eight studies with no clear link between implicit bias and outcome disparities.
Each time, the response was “no.” The author highlighted that “guided by science” was a misrepresentation: the sources were social‑science studies rather than clinical data.
The Mike’s Ark Ambush
When a nurse heard the author reading “those eight studies,” a “safe” claim was made in the ER supervisor’s office. The author was told that expressing a dissenting opinion was deemed unsafe. Without evidence, the “proceeding” was predetermined, reminiscent of Kafka’s totalitarian twist. The author wasn’t asked to justify the claim that implicit bias was unsafe—just that a different perspective was not permitted.
Seeking Answers from Leadership
When the author approached the new president of Duke Raleigh Hospital:
- Posed a simple question: “Why is equity a better goal than equality?”
- HR attended the meeting. No answer surfaced—only a blanket “our commitments are resolute.”
- Supervisor suggested the author’s questions were a distraction, “a forced debate” that wastes time.
The author flagged that the ER’s focus should be on patient care, not on “diversity for its own sake.”
Is “Diversity” a Goal or a Tool?
In emails, the author asked: “Does diversity mean hiring the best and the brightest, or is it an end goal on its own?” The reply was vague: “Diversity is a Duke value.” No discussion of merit versus colour bias.
From Support to Termination
The author kept the conversation open with family and coworkers. Their spouse became a strong advocate, albeit warning of the possible embarrassment. A famed essay in the Gulag Archipelago weighed in: ‘common truth can topple tyranny.’
Despite building a case for merit‑based hiring, the author was terminated “not for cause” after pointing out that everything was orchestrated around a single critique of the DEI doctrine.
- The Board investigation highlighted an alleged “disruptive behavior” that was not found in the governing body’s policy.
- Finding a new job was tough, leading to a contractor role more than an hour from home.
What This Means for the Next Generation
“You’ll fear something. Fear God, not man. Never shy away from asking questions in the pursuit of truth.”
With the lessons learned, the author urges a wider audience to perceive an imbalance between equality and equity, and to challenge the moulding frameworks that cloud objective decision‑making.
Final Takeaway
When a paper giant flips its banner on the fly, the stories that survive are ones spoken in plain, honest language. The narrative that sounds like an everyday conversation—and carries the emotional weight of a lived struggle—helps outsmart algorithms and keeps the human voice alive.