Tag: DEI

  • Academic Publishers Braced for Slowdown as Trump DEI Purge Bites

    Academic Publishers Braced for Slowdown as Trump DEI Purge Bites

    Academic presses may face a slump in sales as U.S. university librarians become more cautious about buying books related to gender, politics or race in light of Donald Trump’s attack on “woke” research, publishers have warned.

    With the Trump administration seeking to slash what it calls “radical and wasteful” spending on government diversity, equity and inclusion programs, American science agencies have begun cancelling active research projects on transgender populations, gender identity, environmental justice and any studies seen to discriminate on race or ethnicity.

    Peer review panels have also been halted to ensure new grants align with “agency priorities,” with researchers urged to steer clear of diversity-linked language.

    There are now fears that U.S. university libraries might soon be targeted if they are seen to be buying new titles related to politically sensitive areas.

    Nicola Ramsey, director of Edinburgh University Press, told Times Higher Education that the DEI crackdown could significantly impact the global academic publishing industry.

    “If librarians are told they cannot purchase content that references topics on gender, race, sexuality or minorities, sales will be negatively affected due to the nature of our publishing,” said Ramsey who noted the U.S. academic library market is “key for most university presses and other academic publishers as it’s so large and [universities] traditionally have had much bigger budgets.”

    The “real commitment to bibliodiversity” among U.S. university libraries “especially among the Academic Research Libraries” underscored their importance to publishing, she added.

    “Those libraries which had sought to build big collections—with a real commitment to bibliodiversity—might soon have to make difficult decisions on what they can buy,” explained Ramsey.

    The Trump administration’s antipathy toward DEI initiatives was also likely to reduce research related to diversity that might lead to academic books on such subjects, she said.

    “Most academic publishers have been committed in recent years to diversifying our lists, both in terms of author base and research areas [but] this research has relied heavily on federal grant funding, which is being cut from areas connected to DEI initiatives.”

    Some university presses, such as Edinburgh, are still committed to publishing on diverse topics from a range of authors, added Ramsey. “This [crackdown] will not deter our editors from continuing to diversify in our publishing—it’s a fundamental commitment that can’t be swayed by one administration,” she said.

    That need to uphold diversity in publishing was echoed by Anthony Cond, president of the Association of University Presses and director of Liverpool University Press.

    “Many university presses have long histories of publishing on topics that could be construed as DEI. Recent policy announcements make that work more important, not less,” he said.

    “In a challenging higher education sector across several countries, including financial pressure on libraries, the university press focus on values-based publishing will remain an essential component for the bibliodiversity of scholarship.”

    Source link

  • Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bar on DEI Executive Orders

    Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bar on DEI Executive Orders

    by CUPA-HR | March 17, 2025

    On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit issued a decision allowing the Trump administration to enforce Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, both of which target “illegal … DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” in the public and private sectors and in federal contracts. The 4th Circuit’s decision effectively overrules a February 21 preliminary injunction issued in a U.S. District Court in Maryland that had blocked the administration from enforcing some provisions in the orders.

    As a reminder, orders 14151 and 14173 revoke prior executive orders, including Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to maintain affirmative action plans. Among other things, orders 14151 and 14173 also mandate that:

    • federal agencies include provisions in federal contracts requiring that contractors agree to comply with nondiscrimination laws and certify they do not operate any DEI programs that violate discrimination laws;
    • the Office of Management and Budget terminate all “‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘equitable decision-making,’ ‘equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,’ ‘advancing equity,’ and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate;” and
    • each agency “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”

    CUPA-HR will continue to share further developments regarding the lawsuits challenging orders 14151 and 14173.

     



    Source link

  • Colleges Flag Words Like “Women” to Comply With DEI Bans

    Colleges Flag Words Like “Women” to Comply With DEI Bans

    “Biases.” “Racism.” “Gender.” “Women.”

    Those are just some of the terms colleges and universities are searching for in their databases to ensure compliance with federal DEI bans and similar directives from states and university systems.

    Robin Goodman, distinguished research professor of English at Florida State University and president of the university’s chapter of United Faculty of Florida, said her institution is using a list of keywords to review webpages for DEI language in response to federal and state directives. While not all those terms were scrubbed, the list, which has circulated among faculty, disturbed her.

    “From my point of view, those words are now dangerous words” that exacerbate a “culture of fear” on campus, she said.

    She’s also mystified by which terms did and didn’t make it onto her university’s list, noting that the word “woman” is flagged, but not “man” or “sex.”

    Campuses using keyword lists isn’t entirely new. Some state laws have pressured colleges to avoid using certain terms in the past, said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. But for most campuses, this is a “new space,” as some institutions scramble to comply with federal anti-DEI orders, like the Office for Civil Rights’ Dear Colleague letter, and try to mirror the ways grant-making federal agencies, like the National Science Foundation, have responded.

    Colleges and universities are using the same tactics as many federal agencies parsing their grant projects and webpages to comply with federal anti-DEI directives. The National Science Foundation, which temporarily shut down grant reviews, searched for terms like “female” and “male-dominated” in its research grants. The Centers for Disease Control used a list of roughly 20 terms to guide choices about removing DEI-related language from its website. And the Defense Department reportedly flagged tens of thousands of images and web posts for removal because of alleged connections to DEI, including references to service members with the last name Gay and an image of the Enola Gay aircraft, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima during World War II.

    Campus administrators taking this approach argue that, when tasked with reviewing massive numbers of webpages and programs, keywords make it easier to arrive at a smaller, more manageable pool to review. Faculty members, on the other hand, are baffled and outraged by the strategy. Some sympathize with campus leaders’ plight but argue it’s alarming to watch universities treat terms like “female” as red flags.

    Fansmith doesn’t believe such lists are an ideal strategy.

    Flagged word lists are “a very, very, very blunt tool” for “trying to understand academic content or the merits of research grants or projects,” he said.

    ‘Not a Perfect Approach’

    University leaders recognize that devising keyword lists puts campuses on edge, but some argue it’s the most efficient way to respond to an onslaught of anti-DEI directives.

    East Carolina University’s interim provost, Chris Buddo, explained at a recent Faculty Senate meeting that the Office of University Counsel crafted a list of terms over several months, initially used to review the university’s web presence to comply with the University of North Carolina system’s Equality Policy, which pared back DEI. (The North Carolina General Assembly also demanded an inventory of DEI trainings from the system in 2023, offering up a list of concepts and terms to guide the audit, including “accessibility,” “bias,” “racism” and “social justice.”)

    Then, in February, a UNC system attorney issued a memo prohibiting campuses from mandating courses focused on DEI, referencing Trump’s January anti-DEI executive order. University officials again used a keywords list to search through the course catalog and ensure no general education or major requirements were focused on DEI.

    Faculty at the meeting guffawed at some of the words flagged, including “cultural.”

    “I know it’s been controversial, and I understand it is not a perfect approach,” Buddo told faculty. “But given the significant amount of content we are being asked to review, we started by using this blunt tool—and I recognize it is a blunt tool.”

    He stressed that none of the words on the list are “inherently problematic.”

    But “the list was developed as a way to cast the widest possible net, to make sure we could be aware of all the places that we might be viewed as being noncompliant,” he said.

    Anne Ticknor, chair of the faculty and a professor in the College of Education at East Carolina University, said her institution has no choice but to comply with the system’s directives, though she tried to ensure that faculty had a say in any changes to course requirements.

    “People were fearful that their academic freedom was being infringed upon, since faculty traditionally oversee curriculum, and that includes course titles, syllabus information, course descriptions, content—all of that is typically a faculty’s domain,” she said.

    East Carolina officials told Inside Higher Ed in a statement that most courses flagged using the list were “false positives,” meaning that upon review, they weren’t required or didn’t relate to DEI.

    Florida State University also emphasized in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that just because the university is using a list of key terms to review webpages and communications doesn’t mean those words or pages are necessarily being removed.

    “For example, contrary to media reports, the words ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are easily found throughout the FSU website and have not been removed, nor are they being removed,” the statement read. “Florida State University, like all universities, routinely reviews its messaging to ensure information is up to date and compliant.”

    Florida State president Richard McCullough recognized in a March 4 message to faculty and staff that they may have “feelings of uncertainty and concern.”

    “While we are confident that our institution currently complies with the law, it is important that our messaging reflects new interpretations and priorities,” he told employees.

    Some campus leaders said they crafted flagged-terms lists out of panic.

    Officials at High Point University, a private institution in North Carolina, for example, told Inside Higher Ed in a statement that they created a keyword list in a moment of heightened worry last month after the U.S. Department of Education canceled three grants that supported graduate education programs, totaling $17.8 million. The Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter, which gave institutions two weeks to rid themselves of race-conscious programming, exacerbated their concerns about losing federal funding for other programs.

    According to The News & Observer, the university circulated a list of 49 terms, including “equality” and “gender,” and called for an audit of course descriptions and syllabi, student handbooks and webpages.

    But officials quickly rescinded the move.

    “Facing a 14-day deadline, we acted quickly based on our care and concern for students and faculty,” the statement from High Point read, “but clearly we overcorrected.”

    Provost Daniel Erb sent an apology to academic leaders on March 2, saying he consulted with legal counsel and “there are no terms or words that you are required to change.”

    “While many institutions were working towards removing certain terms and words from websites … our legal counsel has helped clarify that our priority should be on ensuring all our program qualifications and requirements do not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, etc.,” Erb wrote. “Therefore, the concern about the language that is used is no longer a focus.”

    ACE generally doesn’t recommend universities undertake such language reviews in response to the Office for Civil Rights’ anti-DEI directive, Fansmith said. He believes campuses’ usual processes for reviewing university communications and curricula should suffice.

    “The administration has a view of what compliance with civil rights laws means,” which “I don’t think we necessarily believe the law itself supports,” he said.

    The Ripple Effects

    While harried administrators say the flagged terms are just a guidance tool, faculty members find the reviews burdensome and say they have a chilling effect in the classroom.

    Margaret Bauer, professor of English, distinguished professor of arts and sciences and Rives Chair of Southern Literature at East Carolina University, said her department has a Multicultural and Transnational Literatures concentration. She hasn’t done a count, but she expects the word “cultural”—one of the words on the list—comes up in every course description in that concentration. She feels for her colleagues who’ve had to justify courses or explain why they’re false positives. (Bauer is also in the Faculty Senate but stressed that she’s speaking on her own behalf.)

    “We’re already all overtaxed with so much bureaucracy,” she said. “Just to add something that’s so ridiculous—it’s really frustrating … We should have been grading or planning class, things that are productive. This was not productive.”

    Bauer believes administrators are well intentioned and “want to protect us.”

    But “I want them instead to push back … and say, ‘Curriculum is under faculty. And we don’t teach discrimination. We teach the history of it. We’re not doing anything wrong … These words are things our university believes in,’” she said.

    Knowing the word list is out there makes concepts feel taboo in the classroom, she said.

    “When I’m teaching Southern literature, I’m going to end up talking about the history of oppression, the history of discrimination … I can’t not talk about it,” she said, but she finds herself feeling “more self-conscious” about it. She worries faculty members without tenure might fear for their jobs if they “teach honestly.”

    Goodman, of Florida State University, said she also can’t avoid the topics on her university’s flagged-term list.

    “I’m a feminist theorist. I’ve written a lot of books, and they all have ‘feminism’ in the title,” she said. “So, I can’t backtrack it now. It’s all out there in the public.”

    The flagged-words list—especially combined with recent Florida state laws allowing students to record professors in class and requiring professors to undergo post-tenure review—creates an environment where “faculty feel like they are being gagged in class, and they’re fearful,” she added.

    Fansmith isn’t surprised faculty are worried.

    Professors are used to “really complicated, detailed and multi-faceted levels of curriculum construction,” he said. “These are professionals who have spent their lives understanding those nuances, those details and why they matter,” so they’re concerned to see coursework in particular “reduced seemingly to a simplistic list of terms.”

    He believes word lists are an acceptable, albeit not ideal, tool to use if they’re part of an internal review process “done with the care and attention that universities generally do with matters of curricular review and with respect for academic freedom.”

    But “when it’s being mandated from the outside, by the federal government or a state and it’s getting into really perilous ideas of academic freedom and what can be taught, that’s when we start to really worry about what these lists mean and what they represent,” he said.

    Source link

  • Trump: Aus research must disclose vaccine, transgender, DEI or China ties

    Trump: Aus research must disclose vaccine, transgender, DEI or China ties

    US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House. Picture: Mandel Ngan



    By: Erin Morley

    in Industry & Research, Research Funding, Research News, Top Stories


    March 17, 2025

    Australian researchers who receive United States funding have been asked to disclose links to China and whether they agree with US President Donald Trump’s “two sexes” executive order.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Kentucky lawmakers vote to ban DEI spending at public colleges

    Kentucky lawmakers vote to ban DEI spending at public colleges

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Kentucky lawmakers passed a bill Thursday that would prohibit public colleges from using any funds for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, sending the bill to the governor’s desk. 
    • The state Senate passed the bill in a 32-6 vote Wednesday night, largely along party lines. House lawmakers gave the bill their final approval Thursday morning, according to local media. If signed into law, public colleges would have until the end of June to eliminate all DEI positions and offices.
    • Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear, who has previously opposed efforts to limit DEI at public colleges, said Thursday that he intends to closely review the bill but appeared skeptical. “We certainly don’t want to impact the flexibility of our universities” to recruit and retain diverse student bodies, he said. However, Republican lawmakers have a veto-proof legislative supermajority.

    Dive Insight:

    In addition to the ban on DEI spending, the bill seeks to limit the classes that colleges could require students to take. It would prohibit courses designed primarily “to indoctrinate participants with a discriminatory concept” and bar the Council on Postsecondary Education, Kentucky’s higher education coordinating board, from approving degree programs that require students to take such classes.

    The bill defines discriminatory concepts as those justifying or promoting “differential treatment or benefits conferred to individuals on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, or national origin.”

    The bill would also prohibit colleges from using diversity statements — descriptions of one’s experiences with and commitment to diverse student populations. And it would bar colleges from requiring employees or students to undergo diversity training.

    The legislation would exempt DEI training and programs required by federal and state law.

    Additionally, the bill requires state colleges to undergo audits every four years to prove they did not spend funds on DEI.

    State Sen. Stephen West, a Republican, said Wednesday that the legislation had been “fully vetted” and that every college that would be affected by the bill had the opportunity to submit input.

    In support of the bill, West, the chair of the Senate education committee, cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions practices.

    While the court’s ruling exclusively addressed admissions, West applied it to higher education more broadly — an interpretation also adopted by the U.S. Department of Education, and one that is becoming increasingly popular among conservative critics of DEI.

    Similarly, West raised a common criticism of college DEI — alleging that it holds White students responsible for a past in which they did not play a role. 

    He cited his youngest son during Wednesday’s hearing. “He’s responsible for himself and should not be made to feel less than, and this applies to every student, no matter what your race, creed, national origin, sex,” West said.

    Democratic State Sen. Keturah Herron pushed back against West’s argument.

    “I know that you said that you are not responsible for the sins of the past, and you’re not,” Herron told West on Wednesday. “You’re not responsible for the things that have happened to my mother or my life experiences either. However, you are responsible, and we are responsible — this whole body is responsible — for what we do today moving forward.”

    Student and faculty groups have also opposed the bill, saying it would eliminate grants and programs that are crucial to the success of students from underrepresented backgrounds.

    But even with Beshear’s anticipated veto, some Kentucky college leaders have been operating under the assumption that HB 4 — or a bill like it — would become law this year.

    The University of Kentucky dissolved its DEI center in August, with Northern Kentucky University doing the same shortly thereafter.

    At the time, Eli Capilouto, president of the University of Kentucky, said lawmakers signaled their intent to restrict diversity efforts, forcing his institution to prepare.

    “Kentucky legislators have made clear to me in our conversations that they are exploring these issues again as they prepare for the 2025 legislative session,” he said. “If we are to be a campus for everyone, we must demonstrate to ourselves and to those who support and invest in us our commitment to the idea that everyone belongs — both in what we say and in what we do.”

    Source link

  • Religious Freedom as a Defense for DEI?

    Religious Freedom as a Defense for DEI?

    Last month, amid a Trump administration broadside against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, government officials took aim at Georgetown University’s law school.

    “It has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach DEI. This is unacceptable,” interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin wrote in a letter.

    Martin announced he had launched “an inquiry into this” and asked Georgetown law school officials, “If DEI is found in your courses or teaching in anyway [sic], will you move swiftly to remove it?” He added that students and others “affiliated with a law school or university” that “continues to teach and utilize DEI” would not be hired “for our fellows program, our summer internship” or other jobs.

    Martin’s letter, which was sent on Feb. 17 and quickly became public, prompted shock and outrage, with many observers noting that it was a clear affront to First Amendment rights at Georgetown. It also drew a quick—and pointed—response from the law school.

    Georgetown Law dean William Treanor invoked both the First Amendment and the tenets of Catholic faith in his March 6 response to Martin, noting that the government cannot control curriculum.

    “As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown University was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical, and spiritual understanding,” Treanor wrote in a response that soon spread online. “For us at Georgetown, this principle is a moral and educational imperative. It is a principle that defines our mission as a Catholic and Jesuit institution.”

    Given that multiple institutions have already complied with Trump directives to unwind DEI initiatives, despite numerous outstanding legal questions, Treanor’s response stood out as an uncommon example of a university holding its ground. It also raised a unique question for religiously affiliated institutions: Does religious freedom offer a defense against Trump’s attacks on DEI efforts?

    A Faith-Based Defense for DEI

    It might. For decades, faith-based colleges and universities have cited religious freedom in decrying federal meddling in their policies and practices.

    Some institutions have argued in drawn-out legal battles that they’re exempt from federal rules that chafe against tenets of their faith, such as strictures related to gender and sexual orientation. They’ve similarly asserted in court that whom they hire or fire is within their theological purview. Such legal cases often revolve around the concept of church autonomy doctrine, a legal principle protecting the rights of religious institutions to govern themselves—including their internal operations.

    Now, as Treanor’s letter suggests, the same argument could prove a powerful tool for pushing back against the onslaught of anti-DEI directives coming out of the Trump administration. Religious institutions that view diversity, equity and inclusion as core to their faith missions arguably have a layer of legal protection to defend DEI initiatives that their secular peers do not. They could also ostensibly challenge anti-DEI orders in court on religious freedom grounds at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court has displayed a warm disposition toward religious issues.

    “It’s not an unreasonable argument,” said Charles Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and research professor of law at the University of Dayton, a Catholic—but not Jesuit—institution in Ohio. He emphasized that he was speaking on his own behalf, not the university’s.

    Church autonomy doctrine is based on the idea that “we have the right to run our institutions consistent with what our beliefs are, and we don’t need people from the outside coming out telling us what we believe,” he added. Most DEI efforts are “certainly consistent with Christian values … to help the underprivileged, the downtrodden, the most in need.”

    Jesuit colleges and universities, such as Georgetown, seem the most likely to consider venturing into this legal battleground, given the religious order’s emphasis on social causes. Many Catholic colleges—and Jesuit institutions in particular—were founded to serve burgeoning Catholic immigrant populations. In recent years, Jesuits founded several new institutions designed explicitly to support low-income students; those colleges, like Arrupe College in Chicago, have emphasized efforts to enroll and retain students from underrepresented groups.

    But even if some Jesuit institutions do view DEI as central to their faith, it remains to be seen whether they’re willing to call on their religious identities to fight for it.

    What Religious Colleges Said

    They’re certainly not keen to do so publicly.

    Of the 27 Jesuit universities that Inside Higher Ed contacted for this story, only two responded by deadline. Fordham University declined to comment, while Seattle University sent a link to a past statement from President Eduardo M. Peñalver that noted the institution “does not plan to make any immediate operational changes in response to [a Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter] and will await new regulations or formal administrative guidance.” He added that resulting guidance will be studied carefully and the university will “either comply in a manner consistent with our Jesuit Catholic values … or—if that proves impossible—consider other legal avenues.”

    The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities is also treading carefully.

    “The member institutions of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities share a mission based on long-standing Catholic religious beliefs and values in the Jesuit traditions, which affirm the equal dignity of every human being and of the human family in all its diversity. As noted by the dean of Georgetown Law, we are all ‘founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding,’” an AJCU spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed by email.

    AJCU did not answer specific questions sent by Inside Higher Ed.

    Raymond Plaza, director of Santa Clara University’s Office for Diversity and Inclusion and chair of AJCU’s Diversity and Equity Network, offered a defense of DEI initiatives. Speaking in his personal capacity, Plaza argued that DEI work has been deliberately misconstrued by its critics.

    “DEI is not about divisions or separation, it’s about how can I create a space where people can be their authentic selves and thrive?” Plaza said. “It’s not that this group thrives while the other one doesn’t.”

    He emphasized the need to create an environment where all students feel welcome. “At the end of the day, it’s really about how we build community on our campuses,” Plaza said.

    A review of university DEI pages shows that many Jesuit institutions cite their religious beliefs in support of such initiatives. Some emphasize social justice and inclusion as tenets of their faith.

    “Inspired by the Catholic and Jesuit tradition, our community believes that every human being is a profound gift of God, deserving of both dignity and opportunity,” Creighton University’s website reads. “We thus strive to acknowledge and celebrate diversity at Creighton—building equitable, inclusive, welcoming spaces and relationships that are required for every person to thrive.”

    Some institutions even note their antiracism efforts.

    “At LMU, the goal of diversity, equity, and inclusion is to actively cultivate an anti-racist institutional climate that supports inclusive excellence and fights systemic oppression,” Loyola Marymount University’s website reads, adding that such values are “intrinsic” to their mission.

    But other Jesuit universities appear to have backtracked in the face of Trump’s attacks on DEI.

    The University of Scranton, for example, overhauled its DEI page in recent weeks, removing references to systemic racism and the “historically unfair and unjust treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color,” according to an archived page available on the Wayback Machine.

    Le Moyne University also removed BIPOC references, identity-based resources and an “oath of diversity and inclusion” from its DEI page, an archive on the Wayback Machine shows. Le Moyne officials also told the student newspaper that the university is considering changing the name of its Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging office due to federal attacks on DEI efforts.

    An Untested Strategy

    Just because Jesuit institutions aren’t openly using religious freedom as a rationale for preserving DEI, it doesn’t mean the idea is without merit, legal and Catholic higher ed scholars say.

    Russo hasn’t seen any religious college call on its faith mission to defend DEI in court—at least not yet. While the idea is “floating around out there, it has not yet made much of a judicial splash,” he said.

    Still, he believes it’s a plausible legal argument that could receive a “strong reception” in the Supreme Court, provided colleges aren’t defending practices that directly butt up against the court’s ruling on race-conscious admissions. He believes the overall message of Treanor’s letter to Martin is “on the mark.”

    “I don’t think anybody would disagree that helping those most in need, however we describe that, is consistent with Christian values,” Russo said.

    Donna Carroll, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, agreed equity is a “mission-critical commitment” for most Catholic higher ed institutions.

    “For Catholic colleges and universities, DEI work is a long-held expression of mission and of the Catholic social teaching that anchors it—including a commitment to the dignity of each person, a solidarity with the vulnerable and less advantaged, and a care for the common good,” Carroll wrote to Inside Higher Ed. “All this is foundational to who we are, what and how we teach, and the services that we provide.”

    She sees Martin’s inquiry into Georgetown Law School as a disturbing challenge to academic freedom but isn’t sure if there’s a “threshold that might trigger concern about religious freedom” for Catholic institutions.

    “With so much uncertainty, it is hard to say,” she said. “And such a determination would require sectorwide discussion.”

    Source link

  • How standardized tests became part of the DEI debate

    How standardized tests became part of the DEI debate

    In the Education Department’s sweeping Dear Colleague letter last month, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor wrote that colleges must eliminate all race-conscious programs and policies, from scholarships and admissions practices to campus cultural groups and DEI training.

    One surprising mention: standardized testing policies.

    Trainor wrote that test-optional policies could be “proxies for race” to help colleges “give preference” to certain groups.

    “That is true whether the proxies are used to grant preferences on an individual basis or a systematic one,” he wrote. “It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.”

    Higher education leaders and researchers have long debated the pros and cons of standardized testing in admissions: Some believe they’re a meritocratic predictor of academic success, while others say they’re more aligned with family wealth. In recent years, those debates have become entangled with discussions of systemic racism in the American education system.

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of colleges waived test requirements for applicants. Five years later, most have retained their test-optional policies—though a year ago some selective institutions began returning to score requirements, reigniting a charged debate about the role of standardized tests in admissions.

    After the Supreme Court banned affirmative action in 2023, experts said test-optional policies could serve as race-neutral measures to help colleges maintain diversity in their applicant pools. They cited research showing that colleges with test-optional policies enrolled 10 to 12 percent more students from underrepresented racial backgrounds; other studies found that doing away with test requirements simplified the application process and thus removed barriers for first-generation and other underserved students. The Biden administration even included test-optional policies in its guidance for colleges adjusting to the court ruling.

    If colleges cited such research in keeping their test-optional policies, Trainor’s letter implied it could be grounds for a civil rights investigation.

    In a Frequently Asked Questions document meant to clarify the broad scope of the Dear Colleague letter, OCR made no mention of testing policies. But in response to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed about how the department views test-optional policies, Trainor left the door open to federal scrutiny.

    “This isn’t complicated,” he wrote. “When in doubt, every school should consult the [Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard] legal test contained in the [Dear Colleague letter]: ‘If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law.’”

    Harry Feder, executive director of FairTest and an outspoken critic of standardized testing, said assessments like the SAT have long been embroiled in debates about racial equity in education, but the discourse grew more prominent as attacks on DEI and affirmative action intensified.

    “The SAT has racial bias baked into it from its origins as an early IQ test to keep out the riffraff,” he said. “What Republicans are now saying is, that’s an objective measure of merit, and if white and Asian kids do better on them over all, then colleges not considering those scores is a form DEI run amok.”

    John Friedman, an economics professor at Brown University, has published numerous influential studies on the effects of standardized testing policies, including those cited by the majority of Ivy League institutions that decided to return to test requirements. He said he understands where the Education Department’s skepticism comes from.

    “Schools might be tempted to continue test-optional policies to make it easier to maintain diverse classes, even if that makes it harder to assess students’ academic preparation,’” Friedman said. “I think that’s where some of the angst comes from, as part of a larger concern about higher education moving away from the traditional sense of meritocracy.”

    At the same time, he said the department should consider how institutions use test scores in admissions, which can vary widely.

    “The point is not that you can’t go test-optional. It’s that you shouldn’t if your goal is an end run around the SFFA decision,” Friedman said. “It would be bad to force institutions that decided thoughtfully that test requirements are not best for them to adopt those policies anyway.”

    Dominique Baker, associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, said she doesn’t believe it should matter whether colleges are considering racial diversity in deciding on their testing policies. The truth, she said, is that research on how testing policies affect applicant diversity is murky, and many of the colleges where the policies could have a demonstrable impact have already returned to requiring scores.

    For her, the mention of testing policies alongside other DEI initiatives is “head-scratching.”

    “The places the administration cares about have largely already returned to testing, or are certainly poised to do so soon. So who is this for?” Baker said. “It’s bananas that testing is even in here.”

    Reversing the Test-Optional Tide?

    So far, the letter hasn’t had any effect on institutions’ testing policies. But colleges are starting to respond to the Dear Colleague letter’s guidance in other ways, changing the names of student service offices, scrubbing mentions of race and equity from their websites, eliminating race-conscious programs, and canceling affinity group events.

    “It would be naïve to believe that certain institutions wouldn’t, at the very least, strongly consider changing their testing policies in order to fly under the radar with the administration,” Baker said.

    Some colleges are pushing ahead with their test-optional policies regardless. Last Thursday the University of Vermont announced that its test-optional policy, put in place during the pandemic, would become permanent.

    Jay Jacobs, vice president for enrollment management at Vermont, told Inside Higher Ed the decision was based on years of research that found that removing test requirements not only had little effect on students’ academic performance and persistence, but also helped UVM achieve its goal of enrolling more local and first-generation students.

    He said the university did not take racial diversity into account when measuring the policy’s enrollment impact—“we didn’t want that to be construed as the reason,” he explained—but said that whatever the rationale, he doesn’t believe the Education Department’s guidance should have any influence.

    “No external party should have a say in dictating institutional policy,” Jacobs said.

    Meanwhile, leaders in the assessment industry have remained largely silent about the Trump administration’s promotion of their exams as part of the war on DEI.

    The College Board, which owns and administers the SAT, did not release a public statement about the letter, nor did ACT, Educational Testing Services or any other major assessment organization.

    College Board communications director Holly Stepp wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the organization believes testing can promote college access, but it does not usually comment on policy matters.

    “College Board provides access and opportunity to millions of students from every background through programs that are mission-driven, evidence-based, and nonpartisan,” Stepp wrote. “We do not set policies around how our exam is used by higher education institutions and scholarship providers.”

    Juan Elizondo, ACT’s strategic communications director for government and public relations, told Inside Higher Ed that the company stands behind institutions’ freedom to set their own testing policies.

    “ACT respects the authority of our higher education partners to decide the admission standards that are right for their institutions,” he wrote.

    Failing the Logic Test

    As colleges like Yale, Harvard and MIT returned to test requirements last year, many cited the same new research: a study from Opportunity Insights that found that test-optional policies made it more difficult for selective institutions to admit students who could succeed academically—and to find qualified applicants from diverse racial and economic backgrounds. Statements from both Yale and Dartmouth said that test scores could “help expand access” for underrepresented groups, including students of color.

    So if both test-optional and test-mandatory policies can promote racial diversity depending on the institution, how will the Trump administration enforce its guidance?

    When asked this question, Trainor did not respond directly but implied that any institution using racial diversity as a justification for any policy, or even citing it as a potential benefit, could be in violation of the current Education Department’s views on civil rights law.

    Friedman, one of the researchers who produced the Opportunity Insights study, said his research showed that for some highly selective colleges, requiring test scores could help “a little bit” with diversity in the selection process. The argument is that by providing a standardized measure of academic preparedness, selective colleges can find a “diamond in the rough”—applicants from underresourced high schools who would struggle to stand out otherwise.

    “For some schools, going back to requiring testing may help improve diversity, but my sense is that improving diversity is not the primary motivation behind this policy change,” he said.

    Feder agreed but had a different prediction.

    “If I’m at the OCR and an Ivy League college is saying, ‘We went back to test requirements because it’s good for diversity,’ even if that’s not really the case, I’d go investigate them,” he said. “By their own logic, they’d have to.”

    Baker said there hasn’t been enough research to determine whether test-optional policies make a huge difference in promoting diversity. Many of the colleges that have kept them in place, she said, have also made more holistic changes to their admissions process that could account for diversity gains. But she believes ending the experiment early by government coercion would be a major step backward.

    “Researchers in the field are doing some real deep dives to better understand the effects of test-optional policies themselves. The people writing the [Dear Colleague] letter have no clue about any of that; they just read about how these policies are part of an anti-white war on meritocracy,” she said. “They’re just throwing spaghetti at the wall.”

    Source link

  • DOGE Education Cuts Hit Students with Disabilities, Literacy Research – The 74

    DOGE Education Cuts Hit Students with Disabilities, Literacy Research – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    When teens and young adults with disabilities in California’s Poway Unified School District heard about a new opportunity to get extra help planning for life after high school, nearly every eligible student signed up.

    The program, known as Charting My Path for Future Success, aimed to fill a major gap in education research about what kinds of support give students nearing graduation the best shot at living independently, finding work, or continuing their studies.

    Students with disabilities finish college at much lower rates than their non-disabled peers, and often struggle to tap into state employment programs for adults with disabilities, said Stacey McCrath-Smith, a director of special education at Poway Unified, which had 135 students participating in the program. So the extra help, which included learning how to track goals on a tool designed for high schoolers with disabilities, was much needed.

    Charting My Path launched earlier this school year in Poway Unified and 12 other school districts. The salaries of 61 school staff nationwide, and the training they received to work with nearly 1,100 high schoolers with disabilities for a year and a half, was paid for by the U.S. Department of Education.

    Jessie Damroth’s 17-year-old son Logan, who has autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other medical needs, had attended classes and met with his mentor through the program at Newton Public Schools in Massachusetts for a month. For the first time, he was talking excitedly about career options in science and what he might study at college.

    “He was starting to talk about what his path would look like,” Damroth said. “It was exciting to hear him get really excited about these opportunities. … He needed that extra support to really reinforce that he could do this.”

    Then the Trump administration pulled the plug.

    Charting My Path was among more than 200 Education Department contracts and grants terminated over the last two weeks by the Trump administration’s U.S. DOGE Service. DOGE has slashed spending it deemed to be wasteful, fraudulent, or in service of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility goals that President Donald Trump has sought to ban. But in several instances, the decision to cancel contracts affected more than researchers analyzing data in their offices — it affected students.

    Many projects, like Charting My Path, involved training teachers in new methods, testing learning materials in actual classrooms, and helping school systems use data more effectively.

    “Students were going to learn really how to set goals and track progress themselves, rather than having it be done for them,” McCrath-Smith said. “That is the skill that they will need post-high school when there’s not a teacher around.”

    All of that work was abruptly halted — in some cases with nearly finished results that now cannot be distributed.

    Every administration is entitled to set its own priorities, and contracts can be canceled or changed, said Steven Fleischman, an education consultant who for many years ran one of the regional research programs that was terminated. He compared it to a homeowner deciding they no longer want a deck as part of their remodel.

    But the current approach reminds him more of construction projects started and then abandoned during the Great Recession, in some cases leaving giant holes that sat for years.

    “You can walk around and say, ‘Oh, that was a building we never finished because the funds got cut off,’” he said.

    DOGE drives cuts to education research contracts, grants

    The Education Department has been a prime target of DOGE, the chaotic cost-cutting initiative led by billionaire Elon Musk, now a senior adviser to Trump.

    So far, DOGE has halted 89 education projects, many of which were under the purview of the Institute of Education Sciences, the ostensibly independent research arm of the Education Department. The administration said those cuts, which included multi-year contracts, totaled $881 million. In recent years, the federal government has spent just over $800 million on the entire IES budget.

    DOGE has also shut down 10 regional labs that conduct research for states and local schools and shuttered four equity assistance centers that help with teacher training. The Trump administration also cut off funding for nearly 100 teacher training grants and 18 grants for centers that often work to improve instruction for struggling students.

    The total savings is up for debate. The Trump administration said the terminated Education Department contracts and grants were worth $2 billion. But some were near completion with most of the money already spent.

    An NPR analysis of all of DOGE’s reported savings found that it likely was around $2 billion for the entire federal government — though the Education Department is a top contributor.

    On Friday, a federal judge issued an injunction that temporarily blocks the Trump administration from canceling additional contracts and grants that might violate the anti-DEIA executive order. It’s not clear whether the injunction would prevent more contracts from being canceled “for convenience.”

    Mark Schneider, the recent past IES director, said the sweeping cuts represent an opportunity to overhaul a bloated education research establishment. But even many conservative critics have expressed alarm at how wide-ranging and indiscriminate the cuts have been. Congress mandated many of the terminated programs, which also indirectly support state and privately funded research.

    The canceled projects include contracts that support maintenance of the Common Core of Data, a major database used by policymakers, researchers, and journalists, as well as work that supports updates to the What Works Clearinghouse, a huge repository of evidence-based practices available to educators for free.

    And after promising not to make any cuts to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the nation’s report card, the department canceled an upcoming test for 17-year-olds that helps researchers understand long-term trends. On Monday, Peggy Carr, the head of the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees NAEP, was placed on leave.

    The Education Department did not respond to questions about who decided which programs to cut and what criteria were used. Nor did the department respond to a specific question about why Charting My Path was eliminated. DOGE records estimate the administration saved $22 million by terminating the program early, less than half the $54 million in the original contract.

    The decision has caused mid-year disruptions and uncertainty.

    In Utah, the Canyons School District is trying to reassign the school counselor and three teachers whose salaries were covered by the Charting My Path contract.

    The district, which had 88 high schoolers participating in the program, is hoping to keep using the curriculum to boost its usual services, said Kirsten Stewart, a district spokesperson.

    Officials in Poway Unified, too, hope schools can use the curriculum and tools to keep up a version of the program. But that will take time and work because the program’s four teachers had to be reassigned to other jobs.

    “They dedicated that time and got really important training,” McCrath-Smith said. “We don’t want to see that squandered.”

    For Damroth, the loss of parent support meetings through Charting My Path was especially devastating. Logan has a rare genetic mutation that causes him to fall asleep easily during the day, so Damroth wanted help navigating which colleges might be able to offer extra scheduling support.

    “I have a million questions about this. Instead of just hearing ‘I don’t know’ I was really looking forward to working with Joe and the program,” she said, referring to Logan’s former mentor. “It’s just heartbreaking. I feel like this wasn’t well thought out. … My child wants to do things in life, but he needs to be given the tools to achieve those goals and those dreams that he has.”

    DOGE cuts labs that helped ‘Mississippi Miracle’ in reading

    The dramatic improvement in reading proficiency that Carey Wright oversaw as state superintendent in one the nation’s poorest states became known as the “Mississippi Miracle.”

    Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, based out of the Florida Center for Reading Research at Florida State University, was a key partner in that work, Wright said.

    When Wright wondered if state-funded instructional coaches were really making a difference, REL Southeast dispatched a team to observe, videotape, and analyze the instruction delivered by hundreds of elementary teachers across the state. Researchers reported that teachers’ instructional practices aligned well with the science of reading and that teachers themselves said they felt far more knowledgeable about teaching reading.

    “That solidified for me that the money that we were putting into professional learning was working,” Wright said.

    The study, she noted, arose from a casual conversation with researchers at REL Southeast: “That’s the kind of give and take that the RELs had with the states.”

    Wright, now Maryland state superintendent, said she was looking forward to partnering with REL Mid-Atlantic on a math initiative and on an overhaul of the school accountability system.

    But this month, termination letters went out to the universities and research organizations that run the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories, which were established by Congress in 1965 to serve states and school districts. The letters said the contracts were being terminated “for convenience.”

    The press release that went to news organizations cited “wasteful and ideologically driven spending” and named a single project in Ohio that involved equity audits as a part of an effort to reduce suspensions. Most of the REL projects on the IES website involve reading, math, career connections, and teacher retention.

    Jannelle Kubinec, CEO of WestEd, an education research organization that held the contracts for REL West and REL Northwest, said she never received a complaint or a request to review the contracts before receiving termination letters. Her team had to abruptly cancel meetings to go over results with school districts. In other cases, reports are nearly finished but cannot be distributed because they haven’t gone through the review process.

    REL West was also working with the Utah State Board of Education to figure out if the legislature’s investment in programs to keep early career teachers from leaving the classroom was making a difference, among several other projects.

    “This is good work and we are trying to think through our options,” she said. “But the cancellation does limit our ability to finish the work.”

    Given enough time, Utah should be able to find a staffer to analyze the data collected by REL West, said Sharon Turner, a spokesperson for the Utah State Board of Education. But the findings are much less likely to be shared with other states.

    The most recent contracts started in 2022 and were set to run through 2027.

    The Trump administration said it planned to enter into new contracts for the RELs to satisfy “statutory requirements” and better serve schools and states, though it’s unclear what that will entail.

    “The states drive the research agendas of the RELs,” said Sara Schapiro, the executive director of the Alliance for Learning Innovation, a coalition that advocates for more effective education research. If the federal government dictates what RELs can do, “it runs counter to the whole argument that they want the states to be leading the way on education.”

    Some terminated federal education research was nearly complete

    Some research efforts were nearly complete when they got shut down, raising questions about how efficient these cuts were.

    The American Institutes for Research, for example, was almost done evaluating the impact of the Comprehensive Literacy State Development program, which aims to improve literacy instruction through investments like new curriculum and teacher training.

    AIR’s research spanned 114 elementary schools across 11 states and involved more than 23,000 third, fourth, and fifth graders and their nearly 900 reading teachers.

    Researchers had collected and analyzed a massive trove of data from the randomized trial and presented their findings to federal education officials just three days before the study was terminated.

    “It was a very exciting meeting,” said Mike Garet, a vice president and institute fellow at AIR who oversaw the study. “People were very enthusiastic about the report.”

    Another AIR study that was nearing completion looked at the use of multi-tiered systems of support for reading among first and second graders. It’s a strategy that helps schools identify and provide support to struggling readers, with the most intensive help going to kids with the highest needs. It’s widely used by schools, but its effectiveness hasn’t been tested on a larger scale.

    The research took place in 106 schools and involved over 1,200 educators and 5,700 children who started first grade in 2021 and 2022. Much of the funding for the study went toward paying for teacher training and coaching to roll out the program over three years. All of the data was collected and nearly done being analyzed when DOGE made its cuts.

    Garet doesn’t think he and his team should simply walk away from unfinished work.

    “If we can’t report results, that would violate our covenant with the districts, the teachers, the parents, and the students who devoted a lot of time in the hope of generating knowledge about what works,” Garet said. “Now that we have the data and have the results, I think we’re duty-bound to report them.”

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Leaders Rally to Protect DEI Initiatives

    Higher Ed Leaders Rally to Protect DEI Initiatives

    Drs. Warren Anderson, Lisa Coleman, and Michael Anthony speaking on the President’s panel at NADOHE.Photos by Tim Trumble In a powerful gathering of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) professionals, university leaders from across the nation shared strategies for protecting critical DEI work on college campuses despite mounting opposition nationwide.

    The concluding panel discussion, moderated by Dr. Warren Anderson from Bradley University, featured Dr. Michael D. Anthony, the first African American president of Prairie State College, and Dr. Lisa Coleman, the first female and first Black president of Adler University.

    Coleman, who has over three decades of experience in inclusion work, emphasized the importance of strong communications and media representation in defending DEI efforts.

    “What I see is the evolution of a diversity equity inclusion field from multiculturalism to liberalism to diversity,” she noted, adding that leaders must determine their own risk tolerance and that of their institutions when navigating these challenges.

    Anthony, who leads Prairie State College—both a Predominantly Black Institution and Hispanic-serving Institution about 30 miles from Chicago—highlighted the increasingly polarized context in which DEI work takes place.

    “We’ve been under attack around the federal government… with citizens becoming more cynical, hostile, and divided,” he observed, stressing the importance of critical thinking in an era of fast, subjective media.

    Following the panel discussion, Dr. Clyde Wilson Pickett, vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh and board chairman of NADOHE shared a personal story about his great-grandmother that embodied the spirit of responsibility central to DEI work. He recounted how his great-grandmother, just one generation removed from slavery, would pick up garbage along the streets of her neighborhood every day after working a full day as a domestic worker.

    Thumbnail Img 8378Photos by Tim Trumble “She would take two buses out to be a domestic worker . When she got up in the morning at 5:00 AM to catch her first bus, she would walk down one side of the street picking up garbage,” Pickett explained. When he asked her why she did this, she responded, “We have to understand that we have a responsibility for our own and to take care of our own. So, what I’m doing is investing in our community.”

    Pickett drew a parallel to current DEI challenges that these frontline administrators are facing. “We have to do some things that we didn’t necessarily cause, but something that we had the responsibility to clean up.”

    He reminded attendees of their purpose during these “defining moments” that test values and resilience. “The ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but where they stand in times of challenge and controversy,” he said, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    Pickett urged DEI professionals to stay grounded in their values and purpose. “We have to understand when we face this adversity, we have to return to our why—why do we do what we do? Why we’re committed to what we’re committed to, and who we do it for.”

    He said that building connections rather than divisions is crucial in the fight ahead. Over the weekend, the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors voted to dissolve the college’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and Community Partnerships.

    “We know now more than ever, it’s important for us to do so by building bridges and not walls,” he said. “The same individuals who are leaving trash in our communities, who are causing conflict, want us to put up further walls between each other.”

    Pickett acknowledged the real challenges and potential for burnout in DEI work but urged professionals to practice self-care. “The work of diversity, equity, and inclusion is real. The burnout is real… And our ability to do this work can be compromised if we do not take care of ourselves.”

    The four-day conference, which coincided with International Women’s Day, served as both a celebration of progress and a rallying cry for continued advocacy. Despite growing opposition to DEI initiatives across American campuses, these leaders remain committed to protecting the progress made and supporting the professionals who advance this essential work every day.

    “I am leaving more reenergized and confident for the fight ahead,” said one attendee.

    Source link

  • This week in 5 numbers: Education Department adds detail to DEI guidance

    This week in 5 numbers: Education Department adds detail to DEI guidance

    The value of the grant portfolio at Johns Hopkins University affected by an “unexpected stoppage” of funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the institution announced this week. The research university is bracing for cuts amid funding uncertainty caused by the Trump administration.

    Source link