University of Minnesota professors retract ‘false, misleading’ research characterizing their school as racist

A trio of Minnesota professors retracted their research article on “structural racism” at their university due to its false and misleading claims.

The article, published in Health Services Research, accused the University of Minnesota of employing “tokenistic” and “performative” Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) measures in the wake of George Floyd’s death in 2020.

Janette Dill, Stuart Grande and Tongtan Chantarat are identified as the authors, all of whom are employees of the university working on topics of inequity, inequality, or structural racism.

Grande’s Twitter feed includes multiple references to “anti-racism,” while Chantarat’s protected profile is devoted to “dismantling racism.” Chantarat is a research scientist at the school’s “Antiracism Research” center.

The article was published on Jan. 8 before being retracted a few months later.

“The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by the authors following publication that their characterisation of specific data (personal narratives and experiences) was either inaccurate, misleading, or false,” a message on the article’s original page now says. “The final submitted manuscript unintentionally contained content that mischaracterised the authenticity of experiences represented, and the authors have requested retraction.” 

Retraction Watch, a website devoted to tracking scientific papers, said that the authors either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for their report of the retraction.

The original article included input from university staffers and students, with claims of racism throughout the institution, along with staff who said they were “overwhelmed with advising and mentoring responsibilities, in addition to teaching much of the content in the Division on structural racism.”

The article asserts that the university’s DEI initiatives are largely “performative,” which is then defined as “planning activities, committee work, task force initiatives that are not backed by meaningful actions.”

The university’s diversity initiatives were also called “disingenuous,” with “website placement of photos of racialized faculty, students, or staff, or sweeping claims about commitment to racial justice.”

The authors also claim in the article to have received feedback from professors providing “specific experiences of racist behaviors by faculty, staff, and students, and widespread systemic and structural racism within our institution.”