Tag: antiDEI

  • Education Department halts effort to implement controversial anti-DEI letter

    Education Department halts effort to implement controversial anti-DEI letter

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday stepped back from its attempts to enforce a controversial and sweeping anti-DEI Dear Colleague letter issued nearly a year ago. In that policy letter, the Education Department said some race-based equity programs at colleges and schools discriminate against White and Asian students and could result in their federal funding being withdrawn. 

    The Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard — which banned race-conscious college admissions practices — as a reason to pare back other diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in education.

    “Such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes,” the department’s letter said. “The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.” 

    On Wednesday, however, the Education Department signed a joint motion to dismiss an appeal in a lawsuit that would have allowed the agency to push forward with its anti-DEI policy. In abandoning its appeal, the agency signaled that it’s effectively stepping back from trying to enforce the policy. 

    “In this case, with the stroke of a pen, the administration tried to take a hatchet to 60 years of civil rights laws that were meant to create educational opportunity” for all kids, said AFT President Randi Weingarten in a statement on Wednesday. AFT, one of the nation’s largest teachers unions, was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the letter. “They attempted to rewrite and redefine opportunity to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion and threatened schools and districts with penalties if they failed to comply.” 

    The U.S. Education Department of Education did not respond to multiple requests for comment in time for publication. 

    In American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s Baltimore Division, Judge Stephanie Gallagher last August issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the anti-DEI letter and a subsequent letter requiring school districts to certify that they do not incorporate DEI in their schools. 

    Gallagher did not rule on the contents of the letters but said the manner in which the department changed its policies violated decision-making procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 

    The anti-DEI letter was also on hold because of rulings in at least two other lawsuits challenging the Education Department’s broader anti-DEI measures, including an anti-DEI complaint portal and the anti-DEI certification requirement for districts.

    Those lawsuits are still pending. 

    In the AFT case, the Education Department in October appealed the temporary block to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an attempt to proceed with its anti-DEI measure. 

    Now, however, its decision this week to abandon that appeal could impact a slew of Title VI investigations into universities that were based on the letter. 

    In the Maryland district court’s preliminary injunction, Gallagher said the department specifically cited the letter in launching 51 Title VI investigations on March 14, 2025. After the letter was paused in earlier rulings, the department continued to launch investigations — based on legal interpretations barring DEI that were contained within the letter, but without explicitly citing it, according to Gallagher.

    The department’s decision to abandon its appeal comes after it jettisoned its appeal in another case closely watched by the education community. 

    In that case, the Trump administration on Jan. 2, without explanation, did an about-face and halted its efforts to push through layoffs affecting more than 400 Education Department staffers. The agency had originally appealed the court order requiring the agency to bring back the laid-off personnel.

    Source link

  • Education Department halts effort to implement controversial anti-DEI letter

    Education Department halts effort to implement controversial anti-DEI letter

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday stepped back from its attempts to enforce a controversial and sweeping anti-DEI Dear Colleague letter issued nearly a year ago. In that policy letter, the Education Department said some schools’ race-based equity programs discriminate against White and Asian students and could result in their federal funding being withdrawn. 

    The Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard — which banned race-conscious college admissions practices — as a reason to pare back other diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in education.

    “Such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes,” the department’s letter said. “The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.” 

    On Wednesday, however, the Education Department signed a joint motion to dismiss an appeal in a lawsuit that would have allowed the agency to push forward with its anti-DEI policy. In abandoning its appeal, the agency signaled that it’s effectively stepping back from trying to enforce the policy. 

    “In this case, with the stroke of a pen, the administration tried to take a hatchet to 60 years of civil rights laws that were meant to create educational opportunity” for all kids, said AFT President Randi Weingarten in a statement on Wednesday. AFT, one of the nation’s largest teachers unions, was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the letter. “They attempted to rewrite and redefine opportunity to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion and threatened schools and districts with penalties if they failed to comply.” 

    The U.S. Education Department of Education did not respond to multiple requests for comment in time for publication. 

    In American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland’s Baltimore Division, Judge Stephanie Gallagher last August issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the anti-DEI letter and a subsequent letter requiring school districts to certify that they do not incorporate DEI in their schools. 

    Gallagher did not rule on the contents of the letters but said the manner in which the department changed its policies violated decision-making procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 

    The anti-DEI letter was also on hold because of rulings in at least two other lawsuits challenging the Education Department’s broader anti-DEI measures, including an anti-DEI complaint portal and the anti-DEI certification requirement for districts.

    Those lawsuits are still pending. 

    In the AFT case, the Education Department in October appealed the temporary block to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an attempt to proceed with its anti-DEI measure. 

    Now, however, its decision this week to abandon that appeal could impact a slew of Title VI investigations into universities that were based on the letter. 

    In the Maryland district court’s preliminary injunction, Gallagher said the department specifically cited the letter in launching 51 Title VI investigations on March 14, 2025. After the letter was paused in earlier rulings, the department continued to launch investigations — based on legal interpretations barring DEI that were contained within the letter, but without explicitly citing it, according to Gallagher.

    The department’s decision to abandon its appeal comes after it jettisoned its appeal in another case closely watched by the education community. 

    In that case, the Trump administration on Jan. 2, without explanation, did an about-face and halted its efforts to push through layoffs affecting more than 400 Education Department staffers. The agency had originally appealed the court order requiring the agency to bring back the laid-off personnel.

    Source link

  • ED Drops Appeal of Order Blocking Anti-DEI Guidance

    ED Drops Appeal of Order Blocking Anti-DEI Guidance

    Dropping the appeal ends a yearlong legal battle over the guidance that declared race-based programming illegal.

    Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon and her legal team have dropped their appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked the department from requiring colleges to eradicate all race-based curriculum, financial aid and student services or lose federal funding.

    The motion to dismiss was jointly approved by both parties in the case Wednesday, ending a nearly yearlong court battle over the department’s Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter that declared race-based programming and policies illegal. If institutions didn’t comply within two weeks, department officials threatened to open investigations and rescind federal funding.

    In response, colleges closed offices related to diversity, equity and inclusion; scrubbed websites; and cut other programming.

    First Amendment advocacy groups and the DEI leaders who remain in higher ed declared it a major victory for public education. Democracy Forward, the legal group that represented educators in the case, went as far as to say that it marks the “final defeat” of Trump’s effort to censor lessons and scrub student support programs.

    Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, said it should encourage those affected by the Trump administration’s “unlawful crusade against civil rights” to keep fighting back.

    “Today’s dismissal confirms what the data shows: government attorneys are having an increasingly difficult time defending the lawlessness of the president and his cabinet,” she said in a news release about the court filing. “When people show up and resist, they win.”

    The court filing did not explain why the department chose to abandon the case, and Ellen Keast, a department spokesperson, declined to provide any further comment.

    Trump officials had argued that they were merely enforcing existing federal civil rights laws and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action. They claimed race-based programming constitutes discrimination.

    But 10 days later, a coalition of education unions, a national association and a public school district challenged the letter in court, arguing it violated administrative procedure law and institutions’ First Amendment rights. Then, in August, federal district Judge Stephanie Gallagher struck down the department’s guidance, arguing it “ran afoul” of procedural requirements and that “the regulation of speech cannot be done casually.”

    Colleges and universities aren’t entirely in the clear, though. Just days before the Maryland District Court issued its ruling on the ED letter, the Department of Justice released its own nine-page memo on DEI.

    That guidance, which went even further than ED’s guidance, said that basing services on stand-ins for race—like “lived experience,” “cultural competence” and living in a minority-heavy geographic area—could also violate federal civil rights laws. In response, colleges have closed campus centers and publications cater to certain racial or ethnic groups.

    Still, many educators see this as a significant step forward.

    “When you fight you don’t always win, but you never win without a fight,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the cases’ plaintiffs, in a news release. “We are proud that this case has once again halted the administration’s pattern of using executive fiat to undermine America’s laws that enshrine justice and opportunity for all.”

    Source link

  • Texas Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers Amid Anti-DEI Crusade

    Texas Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers Amid Anti-DEI Crusade

    For the first time in 43 years, lawyers who want to practice in Texas will no longer be required to hold a degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, the Texas Supreme Court decided last week.

    While the ABA is “continuing to work with the Texas Supreme Court—and all other state supreme courts and bar admitting authorities—to help preserve the portability of law school degrees throughout the country,” the policy “reinforces the authority that the Supreme Court of Texas has always had over the licensure of JD graduates,” Jenn Rosato Perea, managing director of the ABA’s accrediting arm, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    Since 1983, Texas has ceded some of that authority to the ABA, whose Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar accredits the majority of law schools in the United States. Most other states have similar ABA oversight in place; it became a popular move in the 1980s because law was becoming increasingly national business. Widespread adoption of ABA accreditation as a licensure standard offered more uniformity and has made it easier for lawyers to practice in multiple states.

    The new Texas policy comes amid the broader crackdown on higher education accreditors by the Trump administration and its allies, and specifically on the ABA, which has become a target of the Republican-led anti-DEI crusade in recent years. Indeed, the ABA suspended its diversity, equity and inclusion standards last year. Now Texas has become the first state to say it will no longer rely on the accreditor to help to set law licensure standards.

    “[The Court] intends to provide stability, certainty, and flexibility to currently approved law schools by guaranteeing ongoing approval to schools that satisfy a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria (such as bar exam passage rate) using metrics no more onerous than those currently required by the ABA,” read a Jan. 6 order signed by all nine justices of the Texas Supreme Court. “[It] does not intend to impose additional accreditation, compliance, or administrative burdens on currently approved law schools.”

    While the policy likely won’t change much in the short term, critics say it invites the creation of alternative law school accreditors, which could make it harder for lawyers to move their practice across state lines.

    Republican-controlled Florida, Ohio and Tennessee are weighing similar measures.

    “This could be the beginning of the end of the ABA as the accreditor of choice for law schools nationally,” Peter Lake, a law professor at Stetson College of Law’s Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy, told Inside Higher Ed. “It’s a little too early to call the game, but this is a significant step toward a goal the Trump administration and many states want to see happen.”

    Part of that goal involves asserting more control over higher education accreditors.

    In April, Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Education to suspend or terminate the federal recognition of accreditors found “to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives.” It specifically called for an investigation of the ABA and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools. In June, six states—Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas—announced the launch of a new regional accreditor, the Commission for Public Higher Education; at the time, Florida governor Ron DeSantis described it as part of an effort to root out “woke ideology” in higher education and break up the “accreditation cartel.”

    The federal government made adjacent arguments in supporting the Texas Supreme Court’s plan to minimize the ABA’s oversight of legal education, also announced last April. In December, the Federal Trade Commission submitted a public comment letter in support of the policy, accusing the ABA of having a “monopoly on the accreditation of American law schools” and of imposing “rigid and costly requirements” mandating “every law school follow an expensive, elitist model of legal education.”

    Texas Open to ABA Alternative

    While the Texas court stopped short of establishing a new law school accreditor, it acknowledged that it might in the future consider “returning to greater reliance on a multistate accrediting entity other than the ABA should a suitable entity become available,” according to the final version of the policy.

    Lake said that could happen eventually, especially if other states decide to follow Texas and ditch the ABA’s oversight. “This is an open invitation to form a [new law school–accrediting] organization,” he said. “And I suspect that whatever group forms will probably be a little more aligned with the Trump administration’s goals and ideas.”

    Educators and experts believe such a move will only impede the goals of legal education and practice.

    “ABA accreditation provides a nationally recognized framework for quality assurance and transparency; portability of licensure through recognition of ABA accreditation by all 50 states, which is critical for graduates’ career flexibility; consumer protections and public accountability through disclosure standards; and a baseline of educational quality that correlates with higher bar passage rates and better employment outcomes,” the deans of eight of the state’s 10 ABA-accredited law schools wrote in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court in June.

    The dean of South Texas College of Law Houston was among those that objected to minimizing the ABA’s oversight of law licenses in the state.

    JHVEPhoto/iStock/Getty Images

    A degree from an ABA-accredited law school is generally required to pursue a career as a lawyer, said Oren R. Griffin, a law professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law.

    “ABA accreditation is a national stamp of approval,” he said. “Law schools may differ on what they prioritize, such as curriculum or clinics they offer, but the standards have identified some basic requirements that allow all law schools to operate at an efficient, effective level.”

    And even if a state says it will license lawyers who didn’t graduate from an ABA-accredited law school, graduates from such institutions may still face limited opportunities.

    “Law schools have been very well served by these standards,“ Griffin said. “If other states were to follow suit and begin to not require ABA accreditation as a national standard, you could end up with some real disparities or differences among the 50 states, which could increase the complexities for students who are graduating and want to be able to practice in multiple states.”

    Regardless of the Texas Supreme Court’s new policy, law schools won’t likely abandon ABA accreditation anytime soon, said Austen L. Parrish, dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law and president of the Association of American Law Schools.

    “For example, a school like the University of Texas—where about 40 percent of students come from out of state and some 30 percent of graduates are placed out of state—cannot afford to not be ABA accredited. And I suspect that’s true for all of the ABA-accredited schools,” he said, adding that any school that eventually gives up ABA accreditation would be charting “a very dangerous path.”

    Students who are not held to the ABA’s national accreditation standards are less likely to receive a quality legal education, Parrish said—a result long demonstrated by the poor outcomes at California’s handful of non-ABA-accredited law schools, which have high attrition and low bar-passage rates, he added.

    “The unraveling of the national accreditation system would be really harmful to students and law schools,” Parrish said. “We’re in a world where schools need to recruit from all over and students end up practicing all over. To have a school that doesn’t do that makes them less attractive to students and more likely to create some of the problems at some of the unaccredited schools in California.”

    And even if Texas and other states do band together to form their own law school accreditor, rivaling the ABA’s influence would be a challenge.

    First, “it’s very difficult to set up an accrediting body and takes quite a bit of money,” Parrish said. “They could set up a regional accreditor, but it’s not necessarily clear who will see that as sufficient for licensing eligibility, which means the schools in those states will still have to go with ABA accreditation … I’m skeptical that more progressive states are going to buy into something that’s blatantly political.”

    For now, he interprets the Texas order as a placeholder.

    “There probably won’t be many changes right now,” he said, “other than keeping the pressure on the ABA, because [Texas] has signaled a willingness to move to a different approach, though it’s not clear what that is right now.”

    Source link

  • Federal judge halts layoffs, anti-DEI measures at Head Start

    Federal judge halts layoffs, anti-DEI measures at Head Start

    Dive Brief:

    • The Trump administration’s efforts to restrict Head Start’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and downsize the early childhood education program were dealt a blow Tuesday, after a federal judge in Washington state temporarily blocked actions taken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last year.
    • The preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle says HHS’ anti-DEI warnings to Head Start providers puts them “in an impossible situation” where they cannot comply with the government’s DEI prohibitions while also fulfilling the program’s purpose, which is to provide early childhood education for historically underserved populations.
    • The temporary block also postpones mass office closures and layoffs at the Office of Head Start, which — together with the DEI ban — disrupted programs nationwide. The pause applies to programs nationwide, said attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is litigating the case.

    Dive Insight:

    The case was partly prompted by a letter sent to Head Start providers in March, which stated “The Office of Head Start will not approve the use of federal funding for any training and technical assistance (TTA) or other program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.” 

    The letter told recipients to “carefully review their annual funding application, including the budget and budget justification narrative, TTA plans, program goals, and any other supplemental materials to ensure they are in accordance with this change.” 

    Two weeks later, on April 1, 2025, HHS closed half of Head Start regional offices and laid off those staff, which left Head Start agencies in 23 states in the lurch, according to the original complaint filed in April by the ACLU. 

    After that, as Head Start programs had difficulty accessing federal grant funds that were already allocated to them and faced other funding issues, the programs were asked to certify that they did not promote DEI, accessibility or “discriminatory equity ideology.” 

    Head Start providers in Washington, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin said in the court documents that the slew of federal changes “have started to dismantle the program piece by piece, resulting in what Head Start agency directors across the country describe as ‘chaos’ that impedes their ability to effectively continue running their programs.” Head Start programs were designed by Congress to provide services that reflect the needs of their communities and serve marginalized populations. 

    Head Start serves about 750,000 infants, toddlers and preschool children a year. More than 17,000 Head Start centers operate nationwide with the support of 250,000 staff, according to the National Head Start Association, which represents the program’s families, students and staff. 

    The court documents pausing the changes on Tuesday say that HHS returned one Wisconsin program director’s grant application and provided her a list of of 197 terms to exclude from applications, including but not limited to “Black,” “diversity,” “disability,” “women,” “tribal,” “equality,” “mental health” and “barrier.” 

    In another case in Washington, a program requested professional development on working with children with autism to support more than 10% of its enrolled children, “but they were forced to remove these plans along with the other ‘prohibited’ terms from applications as ‘a condition of grant renewal,’” the Tuesday court documents say.

    “When a Head Start program has their funding withheld because of their efforts to provide effective education to children with autism, serve tribal members on a reservation, or treat all families with respect, it is an attack on the fundamental promise of the Head Start program — that even children who are furthest away from opportunity should be given the early education they need to succeed in school,” said Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program, in a Jan. 7 statement.

    HHS did not respond to K-12 Dive’s requests for comment.

    The preliminary injunction by Judge Ricardo Martinez comes after other blocks issued by judges in September on HHS’ efforts to exclude some immigrant families from Head Start services. 

    Measures by the U.S. Department of Education to cut DEI from education or education-related services have also been successfully challenged. 

    Multiple rulings by federal judges last spring struck down the Education Department’s anti-DEI policy, which one judge said raises “the specter of a public ‘witch hunt’ that will sow fear and doubt among teachers.” That anti-DEI policy included an “End DEI portal” and a Title VI certification requirement, which was overturned. 

    Title VI protects students against racial discrimination and has typically been invoked to protect historically underserved races, but the Trump administration has used it to prohibit DEI initiatives, saying such measures discriminate against White people.

    Source link

  • Alabama faculty and students file appeal to block anti-DEI law

    Alabama faculty and students file appeal to block anti-DEI law

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • A group of faculty and students at Alabama public colleges on Monday appealed a ruling keeping in place the state’s law barring public colleges and K-12 schools from sponsoring diversity, equity and inclusion programs or having DEI offices.
    • In their lawsuit against Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and the University of Alabama’s trustees, the plaintiffs argued the 2024 law violates their free speech rights and undermines due process because it is too ambiguous for them to know what is prohibited.
    • The appeal, filed with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is necessary because the law “continues to undermine academic freedom and the integrity of higher education in Alabama,” according to Dana Patton, a political science professor at the University of Alabama and one of the plaintiffs.

    Dive Insight:

    Since Oct. 2024, Alabama law has prohibited public colleges and K-12 schools from offering any programming, training or events that base attendance on “race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.” 

    The law, SB 129, also requires these institutions to designate multiple occupancy bathrooms based on “biological sex” and prohibits them from promoting or endorsing “divisive concepts.”

    The legislation’s examples of such concepts include that “meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist” and that people are “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously” based on their federally protected personal characteristics. 

    Colleges can teach or discuss divisive concepts if they do so objectively and “without endorsement as part of a larger course of academic instruction,” the law says.

    In January, Alabama public college faculty and students, along with the NAACP’s Alabama State Conference, sued to end the law. In addition to being too ambiguous, the legislation places viewpoint-based restrictions on what students and professors say, the lawsuit alleged.

    U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor declined the plaintiffs’ request to block the new law in August, ruling that public colleges could “reasonably control” the content of their classes. He also disagreed with their argument that the law’s language is impermissibly vague.

    The plaintiffs, represented by the nonprofit Legal Defense Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, appealed that decision on Monday.

    Patton and the other professor plaintiffs argued in their appeal that Proctor had misconstrued the First Amendment by ruling that public college instructors have no right “to teach free of viewpoint discrimination,” according to a Monday press release. 

    “This law has created a climate of fear on campus that narrows what students can learn and what educators can teach,” Patton said in a Monday statement.

    Patton reported censoring herself and changing the curriculum in “a freshman honors course that she has taught, without incident, for numerous years” following a university investigation and a threat from a state lawmaker to pull back funding for the honors program, according to the appeal.

    The student plaintiffs also pushed back on Proctor’s conclusion that they hadn’t been sufficiently harmed to necessitate a preliminary injunction, arguing he had overlooked important facts and incorrectly applied the law.

    “SB 129 continues to harm my campus community in the months since it went into effect, and that’s why this appeal is so important,” Sydney Testman, a student plaintiff studying at University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a statement. 

    Prior to SB 129, Testman served as finance coordinator for her campus’s Social Justice Advocacy Council, according to the appeal. After the law took effect, the university closed the multicultural diversity center that had funded the council and the stipend for Testman’s position.

    The University of Alabama at Birmingham cited SB 129 when eliminating funding for the council and at least one other student group, but its leaders “failed to identify which divisive concept or component” motivated the cut, Monday’s appeal said.

    “I have watched our campus change overnight, as students are afraid to speak, opportunities for thoughtful engagement have disappeared, and students’ shared sense of belonging has eroded,” Testman said Monday.

    Source link

  • Colleges May Lose State Dept. Partnership in Anti-DEI Crusade

    Colleges May Lose State Dept. Partnership in Anti-DEI Crusade

    State is planning to oust 38 universities from a partnership, The Guardian reported.

    Drew Angerer/AFP/Getty Images | Lance King, Mario Tama and Justin Sullivan/Getty Images | Liz Albro Photography/iStock/Getty Images

    The State Department’s Diplomacy Lab program says it enables students to work on real policy issues, benefitting both their careers and American foreign policy through their research and perspectives. It’s meant to “broaden the State Department’s research base in response to a proliferation of complex global challenges,” according to the program website.

    But now the Trump administration’s domestic policy fight against diversity, equity and inclusion could upend this partnership between the State Department and universities. The Guardian reported last week that the department is planning to suspend 38 institutions from the program, effective Jan. 1, because they had what the department dubbed a “clear DEI hiring policy.” It’s unclear how the department defines that phrase or how it determined these institutions have such policies.

    On Tuesday, The Guardian—citing what it called an unfinalized “internal memo and spreadsheet”—published the list of institutions that State Department plans to kick out, keep in or add to the program. A State Department spokesperson didn’t confirm or deny the list to Inside Higher Ed or provide an interview, but sent an email reiterating the administration’s anti-DEI stance.

    “The Trump Administration is very clear about its stance on DEI,” the unnamed spokesperson wrote. “The State Department is reviewing all programs to ensure that they are in line with the President’s agenda.”

    The institutions to be ousted, per The Guardian’s list, range from selective institutions such as Northeastern, Stanford and Yale universities to relatively small institutions including Colorado College, Gettysburg College and Monmouth University. The 10 universities to be added include Gallaudet University, which specializes in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students, Liberty University, a conservative Christian institution, and the St. Louis and Kansas City campuses of the University of Missouri system. In all, the list shows plans for 76 institutions.

    The shakeup appears to be yet another consequence of the Trump administration’s now nearly year-long campaign to pressure universities to end alleged affirmative action programs or policies. The day after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order mandating an end to “illegal DEI” and calling for restoring “merit-based opportunity.” But Trump’s order didn’t define DEI.

    Through cutting off federal research funding and other blunt means, the administration has tried to push universities to end alleged DEI practices. A few have settled with the administration to restore funding; Columbia University agreed this summer to pay a $221 million fine and to not, among other things, “promote unlawful DEI goals” or “promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotas, diversity targets, or similar efforts.” Columbia is among the institutions that the State Department intends to keep in the program, according to The Guardian’s list.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out Tuesday to the institutions listed to be ousted. Those who responded suggested the program didn’t provide much, or any, funding, and said they didn’t engage in any illegal hiring practices.

    The University of Southern California said in a statement that it “appreciated travel funding provided by the Diplomacy Lab program to two USC students in 2017 and looks forward to future opportunities to collaborate.” The university said that was the last time it received funding, and said it “complies with all applicable federal nondiscrimination laws and does not engage in any unlawful DEI hiring practices.”

    Oakland University political science department chair and Diplomacy Lab campus coordinator Peter F. Trumbore said through a spokesperson that he hasn’t received notice of a change in status as a partner institution. He also said his university received no funding from the State Department for the program, though “our students have had invaluable experiences conducting research on behalf of State, and working with State Department stakeholders in producing and presenting their work.”

    Georgia Institute of Technology spokesperson Blair Meeks said his university also never received funding from the State Department for the program. He also said “Georgia Tech does not discriminate in any of its functions including admissions, educational, and employment programs. We have taken extensive actions over time to eliminate any programs, positions, or activities that could be perceived as DEI in nature.”

    Meeks further wrote that the State Department “communicated that cuts or halts to the program were associated with the federal government shutdown” that ended earlier this month. Sarah Voigt, a spokesperson for St. Catherine University, said in an email that the State Department told her university back on Jan. 31 that it was pausing Diplomacy Lab activities, so the institution didn’t apply for research opportunities this semester. Then, last week, the State Department told the university that “‘due to the delays caused by the shutdown,’ they were again pausing Diplomacy Lab activities.”

    “Our understanding is that the program was shut down due to a lack of government funding,” she wrote.

    “The University had been participating as a Diplomacy Lab Partner Institution since early 2020, and we appreciated the opportunities to offer our students and faculty members very timely research topics through this program,” she added. “If the Department of State were to resume Diplomacy Lab activities, we would review what opportunities were available.”

    Source link

  • Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds

    Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds

    A new policy brief from the University of Southern California reveals that six states—Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana—have emerged as national leaders in efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education, with significant consequences for students and faculty of color.

    The report, “DEI Under Fire: Policy, Politics, and the Future of Campus Diversity,” released by USC’s Black Critical Policy Collective, analyzed legislative trends across all 50 states between August 2024 and July 2025. Researchers developed a composite scoring system based on bills introduced and laws passed, identifying states with the most aggressive anti-DEI activity.

    Texas topped the rankings with a composite score of 16, having introduced 10 bills and passed three laws restricting DEI efforts. Missouri followed with 15 bills introduced, though none passed into law. Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana rounded out the top six states, all scoring between 9 and 14 on the composite scale.

    As of July 2025, 14 states have passed a total of 20 anti-DEI laws, up from 12 states with 14 laws when data collection began in December 2024. These laws typically target four main areas: elimination of DEI offices and staff, bans on mandatory diversity training, prohibitions on diversity statements in hiring, and restrictions on identity-based preferences in admissions and employment.

    “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not peripheral ideals. They are institutional functions—woven into the operational, cultural, and legal architecture of colleges and universities,” wrote Dr. Kendrick B. Davis, series editor for the Critical Policy Collective, in the report’s introduction. “When those functions are restricted or removed, the effects are material.”

    The institutional responses have been swift and substantial. At the University of Texas System, at least 49 DEI-related employees were terminated following the passage of three bills in 2023. The system shut down its Multicultural Engagement Center and Gender & Sexuality Center at UT-Austin and eliminated funding for student identity-based organizations and scholarships for undocumented students.

    In Iowa, following Senate File 2435’s passage in May 2024, the University of Iowa eliminated its Office of Inclusive Education and Strategic Initiatives and laid off 11 DEI-related staff members. The university also removed scholarships specifically aimed at racially minoritized students, redirecting funds to support low-income students more broadly. By October 2024, Iowa’s state universities had reallocated more than $2.1 million from DEI programs.

    Indiana University announced one of the most sweeping academic restructurings in its history, planning to suspend, eliminate, or consolidate at least 43 undergraduate programs, including African American and African Diaspora Studies, Gender Studies, and multiple language programs. The changes follow passage of Senate Bills 202 and 289, which banned DEI offices and prohibited diversity statements in hiring.

    Preliminary enrollment data following the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—which effectively ended race-conscious admissions—shows declining representation of students of color at several elite institutions. At Harvard Law School, Black student enrollment in 2024 dropped to 19 first-year students, down from 43 the previous year. MIT reported a 1% decrease in the proportion of Hispanic and Black students, while UNC-Chapel Hill experienced a 5% decrease in Black, Indigenous, and people of color students overall.

    “The ongoing attacks on DEI, manifested in policy restrictions forcing institutions to comply with race-evasive policies, have significant implications for racial and ethnic diversity, student access and success, and workforce development,” the report states.

    Research shows faculty diversity benefits all students by fostering critical thinking and better preparing graduates for diverse workforces. However, DEI rollbacks make it significantly more difficult to recruit faculty of color, as institutions are now restricted from considering race in hiring decisions—a limitation reinforced by the Harvard ruling.

    The report’s authors—Mya Haynes, Glenda Palacios Quejada, Shawntae Mitchum, and Alexia Oduro—note that even private institutions like Vanderbilt University have implemented similar changes despite not being subject to state laws, “reflecting broader anxieties within the private sector about maintaining—or being seen to maintain—equity-oriented infrastructure under political scrutiny.”

    Student activism has emerged in response to the restrictions. Iowa State University students organized rallies and petitions opposing the elimination of the DEI office and restructuring of the LGBTQIA+ Center. In Alabama, university professors and students filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s DEI ban, arguing it violates First Amendment rights.

    “What is one of the things that’s sometimes difficult to see is the level of coordination between states,” Davis said in an interview. “Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, and Missouri—they’re not just a random collection. They’re a coordinated collection of states that have made some formal, some informal decisions, but what is clear through the legislation is that they share a common goal in restricting access to anything that is culturally relevant or sensitive to racially and ethnically minoritized groups in this country.” 

    Davis noted that while federal actions have dominated recent headlines, states initiated the anti-DEI movement shortly after 2020.

    “We have to remember the states started this anti-DEI, anti-critical race theory movement shortly after 2020,” he explained. “This has been a long time in the making, and I think the current federal efforts are just complementary to what states had already been doing.” The report aims to help policymakers and practitioners “get through some of the noise” and track the escalating legislative activity across multiple states, Davis said.

    The report recommends that institutions embed DEI principles within broader student success initiatives, leverage private funding where public funding is restricted, and strengthen alliances among students, faculty, staff, and community organizations to advocate for institutional accountability.

    Missouri represents a notable exception in the analysis. Despite introducing 14 bills targeting DEI—more than any state except Texas—none have passed into law. The report attributes this to intense legislative gridlock, ideological conflicts within the Republican majority, and strong opposition from educational institutions and community organizations. However, the 2025 legislative session has seen renewed efforts to advance anti-DEI policies.

    The researchers emphasize that the policy shifts carry particular consequences for Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, who are losing access to culturally affirming resources, mentorship opportunities, and financial aid programs specifically designed to address historical inequities in higher education access.

    “If access is conditional and inclusion retractable, higher education cannot claim to serve the public,” Davis wrote.

    The report represents the third in a series examining how equity is being withdrawn across the education pipeline.

     

    Source link

  • Federal District Judge Rules Against Trump’s Anti-DEI Orders

    Federal District Judge Rules Against Trump’s Anti-DEI Orders

    One of the Trump administration’s attempts to terminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on college campuses and in K–12 classrooms has been struck down by a federal district court judge who previously put the guidance on hold.

    Judge Stephanie Gallagher declared in the Thursday ruling that the Department of Education broke the law when it tried to withhold grant funding from institutions that practiced DEI based on one of the president’s executive orders and a related guidance letter. 

    In her opinion, Gallagher focused less on the legality of the attempt to ban DEI itself, but rather the process through which the president and secretary of education tried to do so.

    “This court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not,” the judge wrote. “By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.”

    That said, she did explain the ways Trump’s policy violated the Constitution, saying, “The government cannot proclaim that it ‘will no longer tolerate’ speech it dislikes because of its ‘motivating ideology’—that is a ‘blatant’ and ‘egregious’ violation of the First Amendment.”

    Gallagher’s decision followed a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the plaintiffs, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, after they won a preliminary injunction that blocked parts of Trump’s anti-DEI policy since April. (Gallagher was appointed by Trump during his first presidency in 2018.)

    Since the Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance was enjoined, the Trump administration has made other attempts to block the same academic practices. Most recently, the Department of Justice published a nine-page memo that stated that DEI is unlawful and discriminatory.

    Still, AFT president Randi Weingarten viewed the ruling as a “huge win” against Trump’s “draconian attacks on the essence of public education.”

    “This decision rightly strikes down the government’s attempt to dictate curriculum, and, in so doing, upholds the purpose and promise inherent in our public schools,” Weingarten said in a news release.

    Source link

  • Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance struck down in federal court

    Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance struck down in federal court

    A federal judge on Thursday struck down the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance that threatened to strip colleges and K-12 schools of their federal funding over diversity, equity and inclusion practices it deemed unlawful. 

    U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher’s final judgment in the case comes after she and another federal judge temporarily blocked the guidance while litigation proceeded. 

    Her ruling vacates the Education Department’s Feb. 14 guidance. It also strikes down a Trump administration directive that ordered K-12 school districts to certify they’re not using DEI practices or risk losing federal funding. However, the Trump administration had already withdrawn the requirement due to a prior court ruling. 

    The Education Department, Gallagher wrote Thursday, didn’t take the proper steps to issue the new guidance. She also ruled that the guidance violated constitutional rights by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on classroom speech and using vague language that didn’t make clear what kind of DEI initiatives were prohibited. 

    The ruling deals a blow to one of the Trump administration’s many efforts to stamp out DEI practices in colleges and elsewhere. 

    The Feb. 14 guidance letter immediately sparked outcry from educator groups, who argued that it would limit what they could teach in the classroom, including instruction on history or systemic racism. They also argued it would prohibit campus resources, such as college cultural centers. 

    Shortly after its release, the guidance and related actions from the Education Department sparked at least three separate lawsuits. Gallagher’s ruling is in response to the complaint brought by the American Federation of Teachers, the union’s Maryland affiliate, the American Sociological Association and an Oregon school district. 

    Those groups hailed the ruling Thursday. 

    “Today’s ruling makes it clear that, regardless of President Trump’s wishes and endless attacks, our public education system will continue to meet the diverse needs of every student — from teaching true history to providing critical resources,” AFT-Maryland President Kenya Campbell said in a statement. 

    The required steps for new policies

    The sweeping Feb. 14 guidance interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court case striking down race-conscious admissions to extend to every aspect of education, arguing that colleges and K-12 schools were prohibited from considering race in any of their policies. The letter said that ban extended to scholarships, housing and graduation ceremonies. 

    The letter also took aim at classroom instruction and DEI practices. 

    “Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in the letter. “Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them — particularly during the last four years — under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”

    The Trump administration has maintained that the Feb. 14 guidance merely restates colleges and K-12 schools’ existing obligations under Title VI, which bars federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. However, Gallagher pushed back on that argument, writing that the guidance created new policies for colleges and schools to follow. 

    Title VI — along with the landmark court decision striking down race-conscious admissions — have “never been interpreted to preclude teaching about concepts relating to race,” Gallagher wrote. 

    The Trump administration could have issued guidance to note that it would prioritize Title VI enforcement to “discrimination against all groups, even those in the majority,” Gallagher added. “But it went much farther than that by expanding the definitions of ‘stereotyping,’ ‘stigmatizing,’ and ‘discrimination’ to reach entirely new categories of conduct.” 

    Moreover, the Education Department cited the Feb. 14 letter the following month when it launched investigations into more than 50 colleges over allegations that their programs or scholarships have race-based restrictions. Most of the institutions were targeted because of their relationship with The PhD Project, a nonprofit that for years provided support for underrepresented groups earning doctoral degrees in business but recently adopted a broader mission.

    Source link