This analytical article problematizes the observable similar phenomenon faced by the postsecondary education sector in Uzbekistan and Bangladesh, in particular, the outcomes on the nations' social science education vis-à-vis equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). Both countries started implementing neoliberal policies since the beginning of the 1990s through budget cuts in social science and through privatization employing market development advisory. The similarities highlighted by the phenomenon appear interesting despite the two countries' distinct differences in geography, culture, climate, demography, and history, among others. First, we assess the market development policies in higher education in relation to EDI practices. In both countries, the needs of the students with disability and other forms of impairment are acute. The expectations of the religious minority and gender diverse students remain largely nonmaterialized. We critique a tendency in both countries toward picking and choosing market development policies that favor university administrators and owners. The observed outcomes, unfortunately, appear to weaken higher education objectives, in particular EDI. In addition, these outcomes subtly discourage students pursuing social change and market EDI philosophy, concepts, and theories as unattractive, nonprofitable pursuits. We argue that the outcomes can produce zombie graduates who remain unable to contribute to the broader debates in inclusivity and critical thinking. The outcomes can also result in fragmented, fragile scholars, practitioners, and members of civil society, who feel discouraged to produce cutting edge EDI research and scholarship. The paucity in the EDI phenomenon in Uzbekistan and Bangladesh thrives on dual-hegemonic and client--patron relations that undermine intellectual and political diversity. Our findings on the credentials and the quality of dissertations and publications produced by the academics in the countries' social science sector, in comparison with benchmark scholars and their institutions, form a depressing yet similar pattern. We also came across nonexistence of ethical practices in the domain of social research, as well as unscrupulous practices in research methodology and scholarly publishing platforms, such as Scopus and Cambridge Scholars. The phenomenon complements academic censorship and a culture of fear that appears to envelop social science research in Uzbekistan and Bangladesh. Often, the persecution of scholars and practitioners with a different political view also appears to sustain a climate of apprehension. This social environment of fear extends to the parents of students. Many students remain understandably reluctant to engage in research or discussion on gender diversity and politically sensitive subjects. Consequently, students often choose safer, noncontroversial research topics, for example, for the bachelor's in business administration, which may increase placement opportunities but stifle intellectual growth and critical thinking. At the same time, educators often avoid certain topics in the classroom, such as transgender rights, thus depriving students of a holistic education that addresses inclusivity and critical social and political issues.