You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
I have displayed two data maps in most of my keynotes and professional learning sessions over the past 18 months. One is from Education Week, and it shows states in which bills aiming to ban critical race theory and other topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion in K-12 schools have either been introduced or passed. The Chronicle of Higher Education’s DEI Legislation Tracker is the other map.
Both continue to be useful visual tools for scholars, practitioners and others who are concerned about how misinformation, disinformation and exaggerations about DEI are shaping education policymaking. The origins and harmful effects of these policies are explained in my newest Harvard Education Press book, The Big Lie About Race in America’s Schools.
Between them, the EdWeek and Chronicle maps show that legislative bans have succeeded in 23 states. However, not captured are local-level and self-imposed efforts to defund, eliminate or otherwise suppress DEI initiatives in K-12 school districts and higher education institutions.
A few months ago, several presidents of colleges located in a state where DEI has not been legislatively banned explained what I had heard from dozens of their counterparts elsewhere: Anti-DEI efforts are far more local than most Americans seemingly recognize. Accordingly, the problem is considerably more pervasive than the aforementioned state-level maps show.
DEI retrenchment is occurring on college and university campuses in at least four ways.
First, trustees and executive-level administrators say they remain supportive of the sustainability of various DEI resources and activities but insist that they not be widely broadcasted. In a Forbes article published earlier this year, I referred to this as a “lay low strategy.” Second, positions and various offices, centers and activities are being renamed. The apparent logic is that doing so will make them less obvious to attackers. Third, DEI budgets are being cut. Enrollment declines are mostly being used as rationales, yet political pressures and threats from conservative lawmakers also are powerful contributing factors.
Fourth, chief diversity officers are being intimidated, pushed out and disempowered. Noteworthy is that on many campuses, these professionals were never given the authority, financial resources and staffing that would enable them to help their campuses effectively enact espoused institutional commitments to DEI. In this current political climate, when most CDOs leave, they are not being replaced, thereby weakening or dismantling the DEI infrastructures they and other expert colleagues built.
No one is making trustees and campus executives take such drastic measures. In most instances, they are pre-emptively succumbing to external political pressures. In a campaign video vowing to “reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical left,” President-elect Donald Trump threatened to have the U.S. Department of Justice launch federal civil rights cases against institutions that engage in so-called indoctrination and racial discrimination; he did not specify discrimination against whom. Trump went on to say that he would fine those institutions up to 100 percent of their endowments and use the funds as “restitution” for “victims” of DEI policies; he did not specify who is allegedly being victimized. Surely this spooked some campus leaders who understandably do not want their endowments hit or their institutions’ eligibility for federal funding jeopardized.
In a professional learning session I designed and delivered earlier this year, I invited faculty, staff and administrators across campuses in a public university system to anonymously post everything their institutions do to advance racial equity. I broadened the question to “everything in the name of DEI” in a subsequent workshop for employees from dozens of campuses spanning every geographic region of the country.
In both instances, numerous impressive programs, policies and resources were listed. None of them were the illegal, immoral or otherwise outrageous activities described in the March 7, 2024, congressional hearing titled “Divisive, Excessive, Ineffective: The Real Impact of DEI on College Campuses.” Not one thing on either list even closely resembled any version of the DEI ridiculousness that I hear about on conservative cable news networks or occasionally encounter on social media.
Like the educators and leaders in my sessions, others must take stock of all their DEI efforts. Publicly communicating them is even more important. The latter is undoubtedly terrifying during this high-stakes political moment, especially given President-elect Trump’s campaign promises. But in the absence of transparency, institutions deny themselves opportunities to show and prove that what they are doing in the name of DEI is unifying, not divisive. Show the truth and shame the attackers is what I advise. The alternatives I described earlier will make colleges and universities less responsive, trustworthy and accountable to those who deserve diversity, equity and inclusion—that is, everyone.
