> By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.

and

> Discontinuation of DEI

> The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name.

So, uh, we can't promote diversity but we have to promote viewpoint diversity, whatever that means? Is "viewpoint diversity" not DEI "under whatever name"?

I mean, the subtext is that DEI is supposed to promote racial equality so it's bad, but "viewpoint diversity" promotes ideological equality so it's good? Some kinds of equality are more equal than others?

Read broadly, the idea is absurd; does the biology department have to hire creationists to ensure "viewpoint diversity" among its faculty? Do we have to admit flat-earthers to the geology program to ensure "viewpoint diversity" in the student body? The "external party" here isn't even designated as being "independent" or "unbiased"; it's literally someone who the federal government gets to choose, and who will decide what viewpoints they want to include and which ones to not include.