Tag: DEI

Senator Who Banned DEI Set to Be Texas Tech Chancellor

In 2023, Texas became one of the first red states to institute a sweeping ban on diversity, equity and inclusion in public colleges and universities.

Following pro-Palestinian protests and a police crackdown on an encampment at the University of Texas at Austin in 2024, the Texas Legislature this year passed another law restricting free speech on public campuses, including banning all expressive activities from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m.

The Legislature also this year passed a wide-ranging bill that allows public college and university presidents to take over faculty senates and councils, prohibits faculty elected to those bodies from serving more than two years in a row, and creates an “ombudsman” position that can threaten universities’ funding if they don’t follow that law or the DEI ban.

The lead author listed on all three laws is Sen. Brandon Creighton, chair of the Texas Senate education committee. Having overhauled higher ed statewide, he’s about to get the chance to further his vision at one large university system: On Thursday, the Texas Tech University System plans to name Creighton the “sole finalist” for the system chancellor and chief executive officer job.

His hiring by the system’s Board of Regents—whose members are appointed by the governor with confirmation from the Senate—marks another example of a Republican politician in a large red state, namely Texas and Florida, being installed as a higher ed leader. The trend reflects an evolution in how Republicans are influencing public universities, from passing laws to directly leading institutions and systems. For universities, having a former member of the Legislature in the presidency can help with lobbying lawmakers, but it could also threaten academic freedom and risk alienating faculty.

Creighton wasn’t the only, or even the highest-ranking, politician considered for the position, which historically pays more than $1 million a year. As The Texas Tribune earlier reported, Rep. Jodey Arrington, chair of the U.S. House Budget Committee and shepherd of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which affected higher ed nationwide, was also in the running. Unlike Creighton, Arrington has worked in higher ed—specifically as a vice chancellor and chancellor’s chief of staff in the Texas Tech system. Arrington, who didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview, issued a statement Sunday congratulating Creighton.

Faculty leaders offered a muted response to Creighton’s impending appointment. Neither the president of the Faculty Senate at the main Texas Tech campus, the president of the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors nor the state AAUP conference publicly denounced Creighton. In an emailed statement, the state conference said, “We have concerns about the future of academic freedom and shared governance in the Texas Tech University System given the positions Sen. Creighton has taken in the legislature.”

“We hope that Texas Tech’s strong tradition of shared governance and academic freedom continues so that Texas Tech can thrive,” the statement said.

Cody Campbell, the system board chair, said Creighton is “a fantastic fit with our culture and is clearly the best person for the job.” He added that he likes the higher ed legislation Creighton has passed. (Creighton was also lead author of a new law that lets universities pay athletes directly.)

“He shares the values of the Texas Tech University System,” Campbell said. Both the system and the wider community of Lubbock, where the main Texas Tech campus is located, are “conservative,” he said.

“We do not subscribe to the ideas around DEI and are supportive of a merit-based culture,” Campbell said, adding that Creighton is well positioned to continue the system’s growth in research, enrollment and academic standing.

For Creighton, the job could come with a big payout. Retiring Texas Tech system chancellor Tedd L. Mitchell made $1.3 million in 2023, ranking him the 12th-highest-paid public university leader in the country, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education’s database. The system didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s open records request for Mitchell’s current contract in time for this article’s publication, and Campbell told Inside Higher Ed Creighton’s pay is “yet to be determined.”

“The contract or the compensation were never part of the discussion with any of the candidates,” Campbell said.

Creighton didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview or answer written questions. But he appeared to accept the position in a post on X.

“Over the past six years, no university system in Texas has taken more bold steps forward,” he wrote. “Serving as Chairman of the Senate Education Committee and the Budget Subcommittee has been the honor of a lifetime—especially to help deliver that success for Texas Tech and its regional universities. I feel very blessed to have been considered for the role of Chancellor. There is no greater purpose I would consider than working to make generational changes that transform the lives of young Texans for decades to come.”

Cowing Faculty Senates

Campbell said he doesn’t recall whether Creighton and Arrington initially expressed interest in the position to the board or whether the board reached out to them. Dustin Womble, the board’s vice chair, declined to comment. Campbell said the board “actively recruited” some candidates.

“There wasn’t really a formal application process, necessarily,” he said. But dozens of candidates across the country expressed interest in the “high-paying position” leading a large system, he said.

The system says it has more than 60,000 students across five institutions and 20 locations, including one in San José, Costa Rica. The five institutions are Texas Tech (which has multiple campuses), Texas Tech Health Sciences Center (which also has multiple campuses), the separate Texas Tech Health Sciences Center El Paso, Angelo State University and Midwestern State University.

Asked about Creighton’s lack of higher ed work experience, Campbell said that wasn’t unusual for system chancellors, contrasting the position with those of the presidents who lead individual institutions on a day-to-day basis.

“Our past chancellor was a medical doctor, the chancellor before him was a state senator, the chancellor before him was a former U.S. congressman and a state politician; we’ve had businessmen in that position, we’ve had all different types of people,” Campbell said.

Aside from serving in the Senate for a decade and the state House for seven years before that, Creighton is an attorney.

Andrew Martin, the tenured art professor who leads the Texas Tech University main campus’s AAUP chapter, noted that “our chapter has actively opposed some of the legislation that Sen. Creighton has authored.”

“Our hope now is that Sen. Creighton, in apparently assuming the role of chancellor, will spend time learning more about the campuses in the TTU System and will meet as many students, faculty [and] administrators on our campuses as possible to see how these institutions actually operate day in and day out,” Martin said. “I’m not sure how clear that’s been from his perspective as a lawyer and legislator.”

Martin—who stressed that he was speaking for himself and colleagues he’s spoken to, but not on behalf of his university—said the AAUP is concerned with maintaining academic freedom for faculty and students, upholding tenure protections, and preserving the faculty’s role in determining curriculum, conducting research and exercising shared governance.

When the Legislature passed Senate Bill 37—the Creighton legislation that, among other things, upended faculty senates—Creighton issued a news release saying, “Faculty Senates will no longer control our campuses.” He said his legislation “takes on politically charged academic programs and ensures students graduate with degrees of value, not degrees rooted in activism and political indoctrination.”

Among other things, SB 37 requires university presidents to choose who leads faculty senates. Ryan Cassidy, a tenured associate librarian, was elected to lead the Texas Tech University main campus’s Faculty Senate before SB 37 took effect, and the institution’s president has allowed him to stay in that role.

Asked about Creighton being named chancellor, Cassidy said, “I haven’t really had time to reflect on it.”

Creighton’s bio on the Legislature’s website touts his conservative values outside of higher ed, too. “He has relentlessly hammered excessive taxation, pursued ‘loser pays’ tort reform, passed drug testing for unemployment benefits, stood up for Texas’ 10th Amendment rights and effectively blocked Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion,” the bio says.

Martin said Texas Tech aspires to become a member of the Association of American Universities, a prestigious group of top research universities, of which UT Austin and Texas A&M University are already members. That would be hard if faculty are “marginalized,” he said.

“You can’t get there without the huge investment of faculty,” he said.

Source link

September 3, 2025
Higher Ed Join March on Wall Street to Defend DEI Programs

NEW YORK — The early morning mist hung over Lower Manhattan as buses began arriving from campuses across America. From Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the South to state flagships in the Midwest, from community colleges in New Jersey to Ivy League institutions in New England, students and faculty poured into New York City with a singular purpose: to stand with the Rev. Al Sharpton in defending diversity, equity and inclusion programs under siege.

Thursday’s “March on Wall Street” drew thousands to Manhattan’s Financial District, but among the clergy, labor and community leaders were hundreds of higher education advocates who had traveled from every corner of the nation, transforming the demonstration into an unlikely convergence of campus and community activism.

The 45-minute march through downtown Manhattan carried special significance, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Civil Rights-era March on Washington in 1963. But this time, the target wasn’t the nation’s capital—it was corporate America’s headquarters.

“We come to Wall Street rather than Washington this year to let them know, you can try to turn back the clock, but you can’t turn back time,” Sharpton said as the demonstration began at New York’s popular Foley Square.

For the academics who joined the march, Sharpton’s words resonated with particular urgency. Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald J. Trump has successfully moved to end DEI programs within the federal government and warned schools to do the same or risk losing federal money.

Dr. Harold Williams, an adjunct sociology professor from Philadelphia who had driven three hours with a van full of colleagues, clutched a handmade sign reading “Education is Democracy.”

“We’re watching the systematic destruction of everything we’ve worked to build,” said the 63-year-old educator, who was just one when his mother brought him to Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963 to hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. “They’re not just cutting programs, they’re cutting the pathways that opened higher education to an entire generation of students.”

Among the crowd that gathered near the African Burial Ground—the largest known resting place of enslaved and freed Africans in the country—Dr. Michael Eric Dyson’s voice carried the weight of history and the urgency of the present moment.

The prominent Vanderbilt University professor and public intellectual delivered a rousing address along with a litany of other activists including Marc H. Morial of the National Urban League, Maya Wiley of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers.

“Well, you know, people often ask, what was it like? They look at the grainy black and white photos of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ralph Abernathy and Rosa Parks and Ella Baker and Diane Nash and John Lewis. What was it like to be with them?” Dyson said in an interview with Diverse.

“Well, you know right now, these are the times that define us. These times to future generations will be remarkable. What did you do with the fascist presidency, with an authoritarian man, with an autocrat who was attempting to absorb for himself all the power that was not due him? Well, this is what it looks like.”

Dyson’s words particularly resonated among the young activists in the crowd—students who had grown up during an era of increasing attacks on institutional knowledge and educational access.

The logistics of moving academics from campuses nationwide told its own story of commitment. Many had used personal funds or organized fundraisers to join what some called an “academic pilgrimage” to stand with Sharpton and the broader civil rights community. Howard University organized a busload from the nation’s capital.

Jonah Cohen, 18, a freshman at City College of New York, said that he was energized by the public demonstration of activism.

“This is our moment,” he said of the student turnout. “We are no longer accepting these attacks without a fight. We are fighting back against those who want to take us back to an uglier America. We see a better country.”

State Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate in the upcoming New York City mayoral race, marched alongside some of the professors and students, embodying the coalition between academic and political leadership that advocates say is necessary to resist the rollbacks.

The National Action Network’s strategy of encouraging consumer boycotts of retailers that have scaled back DEI policies resonated with many academics who said that they understood the connection between corporate and educational equity initiatives.

“Corporate America wants to walk away from Black communities, so we are marching to them to bring this fight to their doorstep,” Sharpton said.

Source link

August 28, 2025
DEI was the Compromise, Not the Solution

Dr. Marcela Rodriguez-Campo Through the work that I did as a director of a diversity office, I was always finding ways to make magic out of the least given how poorly our work was funded. Nonetheless, we did everything we could to pay folks for their time and labor. After finishing the planning of one of the largest state-wide events my team had ever hosted, a local artist we had collaborated with previously offered to return to our campus to offer my team a pour-painting workshop, for free. I was left stunned.

That’s too generous, right? Are you sure? Maybe we can dig up some funds or find a sponsorship?

No. I want to give this to your team as a thank you for the work that you all do. And for being a safe person folks can go to.

My eyes immediately welled up with tears: We were safe for her and now she wanted to keep our spirits safe in return. This is community care.

When people from historically marginalized communities enter the Ivory Tower as students, staff, or faculty, institutions actively work to estrange us from our communities. They teach us that our culture, our histories, our languages don’t matter, by rarely including us in the curriculum. They show us that our voices and our stories aren’t allowed to take up space there, when they ban our books, dismiss our questions, deny our realities, and reject our ways of knowing. They mold us into “professionals”, train us in Eurocentric research and teaching practices, and force us to subscribe to their ways of being in order to succeed and survive. They convince us that success will be measured by their standards, rather than those set forth by our communities.

Diversity, equity, & inclusion (DEI) offices are fundamentally about enacting an ethic of care that is culturally and politically grounded in the communities our students come from.

The Trump administration has deemed that a danger and threat to society. They are attempting to make us forget ourselves and pushing an agenda of historical amnesia. They are trying to make us forget that there is a whole world out there beyond the Ivory Walls that needs us to exist. Heartbreakingly enough, it is working. Once bold and visionary leaders are capitulating to authoritarianism and white supremacist ideology. As we see the far-reaching resistance to this now trending DEI-boogeyman, it is more important than ever that we remember our lineage, that we return to our communities, that we return to the river that offered us our first sips of liberation. So that we may continue to — as Toni Morrison taught us — move in the direction of freedom.

As we face persistent threats and attacks on our work, allow me to offer the DEI professionals and our student leaders a reminder: your community needs you and it needs you free, too. Let us learn from the lineage of our work and remember as our own continuous act of rebellion the river from which DEI pulls from.

Cultural centers and diversity offices did not come about placidly or because of the goodwill of institutions. They were fought for, demanded. They were created not because of the polite and demure requests of Students and Faculty of Color, but as a result of courageous boycotts, sit-ins, building occupations, protests, mobilization, and organizing of marginalized communities who recognized the second-class support they were receiving and who were inspired by the activism of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. Chicano students in East LA walked out of schools in droves to denounce the substandard education they were being given. They stepped out to demand better teachers, better learning conditions, more resources, and ethnic studies. In that same year a month later, Black students at Columbia University occupied Hamilton Hall to protest segregation and racism in higher education. Students collectively led a revolution through each act of resistance and refused to accept an education system that dehumanized and disrespected their community.

DEI is a byproduct of student activism. As Black cultural centers began opening, cultural centers for other community groups were created in the same vein, to offer safe spaces and resources to students from the margins. Cultural centers created spaces for students to develop a collective consciousness where they could find themselves and each other in a sea of white curriculum, culture, policies, and practices. They have historically supported the recruitment, retention, and graduation of marginalized student groups. Student and scholar activists’ radical visions of transforming higher education to equitably serve and empower students from the margins was stunted by institutional resistance that was coded as budgets, enrollment, and value add. Some of the same code words we hear today.

So, DEI was created as the compromise, a palatable option. One that checked some of the boxes, while not transforming the institution wholly. DEI was never intended to be the radical resolution student activists fought for.

The aggressive attack on DEI is the consequence of our ability to become effective, to reach a critical mass of folks nationally to question the status quo and the system enough to make the people in power uncomfortable. Whether DEI is banned for one presidency or two or forever, it was never meant to save us. We have to do that. Our communities have always done that. DEI was never going to be enough and at many institutions, it was never intended to be effective. We need to reclaim our agency and power and voices from the institutions who never loved us back anyway and recognize that there is so much more we could build with or without them in and with community. As this current moment and the highly organized right works to scare, intimidate, and paralyze us, the most critical thing we could be doing in this very moment is building community from within and especially from outside of our institutions.

Beloved, we are the global majority. And this current political moment is working hard and fast because it is the last opportunity to reset the scales. They are scared of the collective power and freedom we can tap into in our communities because our communities are our source. The very care that we offer to our students we first learned from our communities. The care we owe is to our communities. The reason we do this work is for our communities. The care we are searching for is in our communities. The resistance has begun and will continue to exist within our communities. Your work will likely need to evolve, as this work always has, so go ahead and evolve.

In Emergent Strategy by adrienne maree brown she shares this powerful wisdom on interdependence and community by Naima Penniman:

“When Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, almost everything lost its footing. Houses were detached from their foundations, trees and shrubbery were uprooted, signposts and vehicles floated down the rivers that became of the streets. But amidst the whipping winds and surging water, the oak tree held its ground. How? Instead of digging its roots deep and solitary into the earth, the oak tree grows its roots wide and interlocks with other oak trees in the surrounding area. And you can’t bring down a hundred oak trees bound beneath the soil! How do we survive the unnatural disasters of climate change, environmental injustice, over-policing, mass-imprisonment, militarization, economic inequality, corporate globalization, and displacement? We must connect in the underground, my people! In this way, we shall survive” (p. 84–85).

We have left ourselves vulnerable because we have dug our roots deep in academia and have not rooted ourselves like the oak tree across our community. We must become an oak tree, rooting ourselves expansively, interdependently within community so that when they come for us– and they will– we will continue to stand. Whatever work we are able to do between now and the next attack on our work, let us reach towards the oak trees who seeded us and root ourselves to one another as we gear up for the struggle of our lifetime. It is the imperative of our lifetime to remember who we are and return to community.

When my institution quickly disposed of the legacy of the DEI professionals and students, community saved me. When they demonized me, targeted me, and worked to snuff out my fire, community reminded me of who I am. When the institution nearly convinced me that someone like me should not exist, community reminded me of the entire world that breathes and lives outside the ivory walls that needs me. Community rekindled my spirit and my hope, that even in the direst set of circumstances, my people make magic.

_____________________

Dr. Marcela Rodriguez-Campo is an educator and scholar-practitioner. She is a former DEI Director from a public four year institution. She is the founder of Co-Libre Education.

Source link

August 27, 2025
Federal Agency Finds George Mason University Violated Civil Rights Law Through DEI Policies

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has determined that George Mason University violated federal civil rights law by using race as a factor in hiring and promotion decisions, the agency announced on Friday.

The finding concluded that GMU violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded education programs. The university now has 10 days to accept a proposed resolution agreement or risk losing federal funding.

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said President Gregory Washington led “a university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race.”

“You can’t make this up,” Trainor said in a statement, noting that Washington had previously called for removing “racist vestiges” from campus in 2020.

The investigation, launched in July 2025, stemmed from complaints filed by multiple GMU professors who alleged the university adopted preferential treatment policies for faculty from “underrepresented groups” between 2020 and the present.

Federal investigators said that they found several problematic practices. As recently as fall 2024, they argue that the university’s website stated it “may choose to waive the competitive search process when there is an opportunity to hire a candidate who strategically advances the institutional commitment to diversity and inclusion.”

The current Faculty Handbook also requires approval from the “Office of Access, Compliance, and Community” – previously called the “Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” until GMU renamed it in March 2025 – before extending job offers.

One high-level administrator told investigators that Washington “created an atmosphere of surveillance” regarding hiring decisions related to diversity objectives.

Under the proposed resolution agreement, Washington must personally issue a statement and apology to the university community, acknowledging the discriminatory practices. The university must also revise hiring policies, conduct annual training, and remove any provisions encouraging racial preferences.

GMU must post the presidential statement prominently on its website and remove any contradictory materials. The university would also be required to maintain compliance records and designate a coordinator to work with federal officials.

George Mason University, located in Fairfax, Virginia, enrolls approximately 39,000 students and receives federal funding that could be at risk if the violations are not resolved.

George Mason officials said that they are reviewing the specific resolution steps proposed by the Department of Education.

“We will continue to respond fully and cooperatively to all inquiries from the Department of Education, the Department of Justice and the U.S. House of Representatives and evaluate the evidence that comes to light,” the university said in a statement. “Our sole focus is our fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the University and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

Source link

August 22, 2025
Justice Department targets ‘unlawful’ DEI in hiring, training
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday released a sweeping guidance document that could impact school district hiring and training practices, as well as the programming available to students.

In some situations, districts could be exposed to legal liability by asking job applicants how their “cultural background informs their teaching,” using recruitment strategies targeting candidates from specific geographic areas or racial backgrounds, and asking job candidates to describe how they overcame obstacles, according to the memo from U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

Such diversity, equity and inclusion practices could amount to “illegal discrimination,” said Bondi in a statement on Wednesday. “This guidance will ensure we are serving the American people and not ideological agendas.”

The DOJ memo contains examples of practices it lists as “unlawful” and says could lead to federal funding being revoked, as well as a list of recommendations, which it says are not mandatory, to avoid “legal pitfalls.”

The guidance issued to all federal agencies also says the following actions could expose federally funded institutions, including school districts,to legal liability based on race, ethnicity or sex-based discrimination:
- Providing teacher training that “all white people are inherently privileged” or training on “toxic masculinity.”
- Providing areas, such as lounges, that are primarily meant to provide “safe spaces” for traditionally underserved groups.
- Using demographically driven criteria “to increase participation by specific racial or sex-based groups” in programs and opportunities.
- Asking employees, including teachers, during training sessions to “confess” to personal biases or privileges based on a protected characteristic.
Instead, school districts and other federally funded institutions should provide opportunities to all races and sex-based groups without regard to their protected characteristics or demographic goals, instead focusing on “universally applicable criteria” such as academic merit or financial hardship, the Justice Department memo said.

The guidance could impact districts’ efforts to make education more equitable, such as by diversifying the teacher pool through Black educator pipelines, training teachers on implicit and explicit biases, and creating academic or enrichment programs to increase engagement from minority student groups.

The directive is in line with the Trump administration’s push to pare back diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, including through the U.S. Department of Education. In recent months, the Education Department has increasingly collaborated with the Department of Justice to enforce civil rights laws, often seeking to protect Asian and White students.

The guidance from the Justice Department illustrates the major shift in how both agencies under President Donald Trump approach enforcement of civil rights laws, with officials now targeting programs that were often launched to fight systemic discrimination.

In April, the Education Department announced a Title VI investigation into Chicago Public Schools over allegations from the conservative group Defending Education that the district’s “Black Students Success Plan” implemented in 2023-24 discriminated against students based on race.

In May, the department announced another Title VI investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools over a 2020 revision to the admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. That policy dropped standardized testing requirements and instead used a holistic review process, which the Education Department said harms Asian American students.

In 2024-25, the highly selective magnet school was 61% Asian and 21% White, with Black and Hispanic students making up less than 10% of the student population each.

The guidance from the Trump administration and the Education Department investigations come after concerns from civil rights groups that recent federal policy changes, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, would set back educational equity efforts even outside of race-conscious admissions.

Scholarship availability, teacher pipelines and student affinity groups were among the top areas beyond college access that advocates were concerned could be impacted in the wake of that ruling.
Source link
August 1, 2025
Video Allegedly Showing U of Iowa Promoting DEI Sparks Probe

dosecreative/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images

Following a complaint by Iowa governor Kim Reynolds, the state attorney general’s office is investigating a video that allegedly shows a University of Iowa administrator saying the institution is still promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, despite the state’s ban.

Fox News Digital published a story earlier this week based on what it called an “undercover video,” which shows a woman identified as Drea Tinoco, assistant director for leadership and student organization development at the university, saying, “On behalf of my office, we’re still going to talk about DEI, we’re still going to do all the DEI things.”

The story doesn’t specify who recorded the video or whether they were working for Fox or another entity. The conservative group Accuracy in Media has released similar videos allegedly revealing employees skirting DEI prohibitions in other states, but AIM president Adam Guillette said the video isn’t from his organization.

In the video, dated July 2, the woman also says, “DEI and student organizations and all of that, it is real, it still exists, we’re still doing DEI work.” Though it’s not in the clip, Fox also reported that Tinoco called Reynolds, a Republican, “cuckoo bananas.”

Tinoco didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday. In an email, a university spokesperson didn’t confirm or deny whether the video is real or whether Tinoco is the person shown in it, saying, “Personnel matters are considered confidential.”

Last year, Reynolds signed legislation banning DEI at public universities. In a statement Tuesday, Reynolds said, “I’m appalled by the remarks made in this video by a University of Iowa employee who blatantly admits to defying DEI restrictions I signed into law on May 9, 2024.”

She filed a complaint with Attorney General Brenna Bird, another Republican, who announced her office is investigating. University president Barbara Wilson additionally told the Iowa Board of Regents Wednesday that her institution has “launched an immediate and comprehensive investigation.”

Source link

August 1, 2025
Justice Department threatens federal funding for colleges over DEI policies
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Justice released guidance Wednesday that threatens to strip grant funding from colleges and other federally funded institutions over what the agency deems unlawful diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
- The agency’s memo targets a sweeping set of practices, including offering race-based scholarship programs, allowing transgender women to access bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity and having identity-based lounges or study spaces on campus — even if they are open to all.
- But the nine-page memo goes a step further, saying even neutral criteria — such as recruitment strategies targeting certain regions — could be deemed unlawful if the Justice Department determines they are chosen because of their demographic composition.
Dive Insight:

The Justice Department’s memo comes after a federal judge temporarily blocked similar guidance from the U.S. Department of Education that broadly targeted diversity, equity and inclusion programs at federally funded colleges and K-12 schools. The order came in response to a lawsuit that alleged the guidance “radically upends” federal antidiscrimination laws.

The guidance from the Justice Department illustrates the major shift in how the agency under President Donald Trump approaches enforcement of civil rights laws, with officials now targeting programs that were often actually launched to fight systemic discrimination.

Earlier this month, the National Urban League declared a “state of emergency” for antidiscrimination policies, calling the Trump administration’s overhaul of the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities “an existential threat” to civil rights laws, according to The Associated Press.

Like the Education Department’s blocked guidance, the Justice Department’s new memo warns that government officials could pull federal funding from institutions that don’t comply. That threat comes at the same time the agency has ramped up investigations into colleges over their diversity initiatives and their responses to antisemitism on campus.

The DOJ memo contains examples of practices it lists as “unlawful” and says could lead to federal funding being revoked, as well as a list of recommendations, which it says are not mandatory, to avoid “legal pitfalls.”

“This Department of Justice will not stand by while recipients of federal funds engage in illegal discrimination,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a Wednesday statement. “This guidance will ensure we are serving the American people and not ideological agendas.”

As examples of unlawful practices, the agency highlighted race-based scholarships or programs, including mentorship programs or leadership initiatives reserved for members of certain racial groups.

The memo could upend admissions. It recommends colleges end programs “designed to achieve discriminatory outcomes” even if they have “facially neutral” criteria, such as targeting scholarships to certain regions to increase enrollment or participation among certain racial groups.

“Instead, use universally applicable criteria, such as academic merit or financial hardship, applied without regard to protected characteristics or demographic goals,” the memo said.

The memo also takes aim at what it describes as “unlawful proxies” for race and sex. As an example, the memo calls out universities that ask job applicants “to demonstrate ‘cultural competence,’ ‘lived experience,’ or ‘cross-cultural skills’ in ways that effectively evaluate candidates’ racial or ethnic backgrounds rather than objective qualifications.”

The Justice Department also flagged diversity statements — which typically ask job or graduate student candidates to explain their experience and commitment to diversity and inclusion initiatives — as potentially unlawful if they advantage “those who discuss experiences intrinsically tied to protected characteristics.” The memo said the same of asking for statements from applicants about “obstacles they have overcome,” a common essay prompt for college applications.

State lawmakers have likewise targeted diversity statements, with many outlawing public colleges from requiring them in job or admission applications.

The memo also said failing to “maintain sex-separated athletic competitions and intimate spaces” could violate federal law. The Justice Department’s examples of those violations include allowing transgender women to use bathrooms, showers, locker rooms and dormitories designated for women, as well as allowing them to compete in women’s athletic events.

And it mentions college lounges or other spaces designated for specific groups, such as a “BIPOC-only study lounge.”

“Even if access is technically open to all, the identity-based focus creates a perception of segregation and may foster a hostile environment,” the memo stated. “This extends to any resource allocation — such as study spaces, computer labs, or event venues — that segregates access based on protected characteristics, even if intended to create ‘safe spaces.’”

It also takes aim at diversity training, giving the example of requiring teachers at K-12 schools to complete a DEI training that includes statements such as “all white people are inherently privileged” or touching on “toxic masculinity.”

The memo says such trainings could violate civil rights laws “if they create a hostile environment or impose penalties for dissent in ways that result in discriminatory treatment.”
Source link
July 31, 2025
DOJ Declares Slew of DEI Practices Unlawful in Memo

Attorney General Pamela Bondi authored the memo declaring all race-conscious practices unlawful.

Photo by Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu via Getty Images

More than three months after a federal court struck down an Education Department directive that barred any practices that consider race at colleges across the country, the Department of Justice declared Wednesday that diversity, equity and inclusion practices are unlawful and “discriminatory.”

But the agency’s memo goes even further than ED’s guidance, suggesting that programs that rely on what they describe as stand-ins for race, like recruitment efforts that focus on majority-minority geographic areas, could violate federal civil rights laws. The directive applies to any organization that receives federal funds, and DOJ officials warned that engaging in potentially unlawful practices could lead to a loss in grant funding.

Other examples of “potentially unlawful proxies” include requirements that job applicants “demonstrate ‘cultural competence,’ ‘lived experience,’ or ‘cross-cultural skills’” or narratives about how the applicant has overcome obstacles, Attorney General Pamela Bondi wrote.

This interpretation of federal law could present new challenges for colleges that have relied on tactics like place-based recruitment to create diverse student bodies since the Supreme Court banned affirmative action in 2023. For instance, some colleges have guaranteed admission to students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high schools.

“This highlights that every practice of colleges is under scrutiny, even ones that have been viewed as politically safe for years (such as top ten percent plans or even TRIO programs). The only truly safe ways to admit students right now are to admit everyone or only use standardized test scores,” Robert Kelchen, a professor in the University of Tennessee at Knoxville’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Being an enrollment management leader has always been tough, but now it’s even more challenging to meet revenue targets and satisfy stakeholders who have politically incompatible goals.”

The document offers clearer guidance about what the Justice Department considers off-limits as it investigates DEI at colleges and universities. The DOJ is playing a greater role in investigating colleges as it enforces its position that DEI programs as well as efforts to boost diversity among faculty and staff violate federal antidiscrimination laws.

Since President Trump took office in January, he’s targeted DEI programs, practices and personnel via executive orders and other efforts. However, higher ed experts have repeatedly said that the orders don’t change the underlying laws, so colleges that complied with the law before Jan. 20 remain in compliance. In response to the federal edicts, colleges have rolled back a number of their programs and closed centers that catered to specific student groups.

Many of the practices declared unlawful in the nine-page memo echo those referenced in the Education Department’s February Dear Colleague letter, such as race-based scholarships. But it also explicitly states that “BIPOC-only study lounges” and similar facilities are unlawful. The Education Department’s guidance mentioned race-based facilities generally but not specifically study lounges.

DEI advocates have long argued that these centers or lounges are open to all students. Some have persisted even after state DEI bans, but multiple colleges have in recent months closed centers that catered to specific student groups. Bondi argued that such spaces violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin.

“Even if access is technically open to all, the identity-based focus creates a perception of segregation and may foster a hostile environment. This extends to any resource allocation—such as study spaces, computer labs, or event venues—that segregates access based on protected characteristics, even if intended to create ‘safe spaces,’” the order reads.

Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said that the memo is “another example of governmental overreach into academic freedom, institutional autonomy and shared governance that conditions federal funding on ideological alignment with the administration’s viewpoints.”

She added that the guidelines in the document violate existing constitutional protections and erode federal civil rights law.

“What is missing from the DOJ narrative on DEI is that treating people differently is not always unjust, especially when doing so corrects a broader pattern of systemic injustice. Considering race and gender in the context of historic unjust discrimination to inform policies and practices at colleges and universities doesn’t in and of itself constitute illegal discrimination, though the letter suggests otherwise.”

Beyond race-based practices, the letter also addresses transgender student athletes, building on the Trump administration’s previous actions that advocates say deny the existence of trans individuals and roll back their rights. The memo states that it would “typically be unlawful” for someone assigned male at birth to compete on women’s sports teams or for an institution to “compel” individuals to share an intimate space, like a locker room, with someone of another sex.

Pasquerella noted that the letter offers guidance, not legal mandates.

“Nevertheless,” she said, “what are described as ‘best practices and nonbinding suggestions’ will likely cause another wave of anticipatory compliance and overcorrection given the climate of fear and intimidation created by the weaponization of research funds.”

Katherine Knott contributed to this report.

Source link

July 30, 2025
DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

Japan needs to admit that long-running efforts to address gender inequality in higher education aren’t working, experts say, with antidiversity sentiment spreading from the U.S. and threatening to gain traction.

Despite government policies spanning nearly two decades, women remain severely underrepresented across Japanese universities, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

As of 2022, women made up just 26.7 percent of faculty nationwide and fewer than half of all students, with even starker disparities in senior academic roles and male-dominated disciplines.

Sayaka Oki, a professor at the University of Tokyo, described the situation as “terrible.”

“Gender equality doesn’t really exist here,” she added.

As of 2022, only 11 percent of professors at Oki’s university were female, with particularly low representation in engineering. In undergraduate programs in physics and engineering, women typically make up only about 15 percent of the student population.

“The gender imbalance starts at the student level and gets worse in higher positions,” she said. The university has launched repeated initiatives that have attempted to address the problem and has reported that it has “steadily increased the number of women in faculty positions.”

Since 2006, Japan’s government has implemented a “goal and timetable” policy aimed at increasing women researchers in natural sciences, setting numerical hiring targets every five years.

However, these targets have remained largely unchanged because the proportion of women earning doctoral degrees—the main feeder for research roles—has not significantly increased.

Ginko Kawano, professor of gender equality at Kyushu University, said that, “after nearly two decades, the policy has not produced significant results, and it appears we are now at a turning point in terms of policy design.”

Kawano noted recent government encouragement for universities to adopt admission quotas for women in STEM to improve applicant numbers.

Yet “while this sends a positive message that women are welcome in these disciplines, it is unlikely to serve as a fundamental solution to the underlying issues,” she said.

She also acknowledged strong opposition from students and faculty: “Institutions that choose to introduce this system should clearly explain the reasoning behind it.

“At the same time, it is crucial for university faculty to have access to the information and knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of such quotas.

“For example, they should be aware of the historical exclusion of women from science, and recognize the persistent bias that suggest[s] women are not suited for STEM fields—biases that continue to shape the choices women feel able to make,” Kawano said.

Adding to the complexity is a political environment increasingly wary of diversity initiatives.

Kawano warned that antidiversity sentiment similar to that in the U.S. could gain traction in Japan, although opposition to gender equality policies has existed independently for years.

Akiyoshi Yonezawa, professor of higher education in the Global Strategy Office at Tohoku University, highlighted demographic pressures pushing universities toward diversity.

“Since around 1990, the number of 18-year-olds has continuously declined and is expected to continue until at least 2040,” he said.

In response, women and international students have been framed as essential for sustaining Japan’s knowledge economy.

Yonezawa criticized how diversity initiatives in Japan are often framed: “DEI initiatives in Japanese universities and society tend to be promoted as a ‘catch-up’ Western mindset rather than intrinsic value formation through daily experience. This makes DEI activities in Japan’s higher education fragile in the long term when faced with controversy.”

Institutional barriers also persist. Oki described how her university’s collegial governance system complicates efforts to implement top-down diversity policies and secure funding, which often comes with centralized control conditions.

“To access the fund, we’re required to adopt a more top-down management style,” she said. “That’s difficult because our university traditionally follows a collegial governance model.”

Oki agreed that there was a risk that international developments had made the situation potentially more difficult—particularly in the U.S., where things like the ban on affirmative action had made colleagues “more cautious about what might happen here.”

Source link

July 29, 2025
UNC System Mandates Reports on DEI Compliance

The University of North Carolina System’s Board of Governors issued a memorandum requiring each of the system’s 17 campuses to develop a subcommittee to evaluate the campus’s compliance with the system’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policy, The Assembly reported.

They have until Sept. 1 to show how they have complied with the policy, which cancelled previous DEI guidance and mandated neutrality from administrators on political and social issues. As a result of that policy, UNC campuses reported that they laid off dozens of staffers, moved 131 people to new positions, and redirected $16 million in DEI spending to student success and wellbeing programs.

According to the memo, the reviews should include briefings with chancellors about employees whose jobs were changed as a result of the DEI ban.

“These confidential reviews should compare an individual’s prior position to his or her new responsibilities, including how the employee’s performance in that role has changed, and what safeguards exist to ensure an employee’s previous responsibilities do not continue in the present role,” the memo states. “Confidential briefings from the chancellor on any disciplinary action taken against personnel should occur at this time as well.”

The memo comes after four UNC employees were secretly filmed by a conservative nonprofit discussing circumventing DEI restrictions; three of those employees are no longer employed by their universities.

Source link

July 25, 2025