University of Minnesota academics were forced to retract an article they wrote about “structural racism” at the institution because its claims were “inaccurate, misleading, or false,” according to a note on the withdrawn article.

The article in question was written in the journal of Health Services Research by UM employees with doctoral degrees who focus on racial equity: Stuart Grande, a senior lecturer, Janette Dill, an associate professor, and Tongtan Chantarat, a research scientist.

Retraction Watch, a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers, first reported that the piece was withdrawn months after the original publishing date.

The research probed into the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies (DEI) at the Division of Health Policy and Management that were implemented after George Floyd’s death at the hands of police in 2020.

The paper labeled some of their employer’s efforts as simply “performative.”

“An important theme … is that current DEI work within … departments is often ‘tokenistic’ or performative rather than substantive or aimed at structural change [to combat racism],” the article said.

“Performative DEI work is identified as planning activities, committee work, task force initiatives that are not backed by meaningful actions,” the article continued. “Many of these activities are disingenuous, such as … website placement of photos of radicalized faculty, students, or staff, or sweeping claims about commitment to racial justice.”

The authors solicited feedback from staff and students at the university, some who said they were exhausted with the DEI initiatives and others who said there was pervasive racism at the University of Minnesota.

“This communication provided specific experiences of racist behaviors by faculty, staff, and students, and widespread systemic and structural racism within our institution,” the research paper said. “Structural racism is structuring opportunity and assigning value within an institution based on race, unfairly disadvantaging some individuals and groups while advantaging others.”

Months after the article was originally published, a note said, “The… article… has been retracted by agreement between the authors [and] the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.”

“The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by the authors following publication that their characterization (sic) of specific data (personal narratives and experiences) was either inaccurate, misleading, or false. The final submitted manuscript unintentionally contained content that mischaracterized (sic) the authenticity of experiences represented, and the authors have requested retraction.”

The university and the academics did not immediately respond to a request for comment.