For those who have actually read the unherd article linked upstream, it makes the point that wokeism, that is, identitarianism as evolved from feminism, is now the lone framework for understanding the world on campus. The author makes the point that there used to many such frameworks in competition with one another, which forced advocates to delve into source material and to develop the ability to defend their position in intellectual engagement. That doesn't happen today. Critics of identitarianism are simply shouted down or dismissed as immoral (racist, transphobic, etc.).
Officers of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion only exist where identitarianism has at least some foothold, and often unchallenged authority. Other frameworks for understanding the world do not need such officers. So in a university where competing worldviews come together, one would expect some demanding such officers and others objecting to them. Only where identitarianism cannot brook any contradiction does criticism of such officers become taboo. Ironically, Concordia could have proven Schulz wrong by ignoring him or even by hosting a public debate on the value of identitarian goals and methods, which would potentially have entailed inviting some controversial speakers. That would have demonstrated that while wokeism certainly exists on campus, ithe campus certainly isn't captive to it. Instead, they moved to shut him up, which is exactly what wokeists do to anyone who challenges them. So they argued against themselves and for Prof. Schuls by refusing to engage him and instead simply trying to silence or marginalize him.