Reagan Was Right, and Rufo Is Wrong

Free and open inquiry on college campuses has been an article of faith among conservatives for decades, along with the maxim that government can’t solve all of society’s problems.

But the fight over diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on campuses has turned this perspective on its head, with a growing number of states embracing government-imposed prohibitions. Florida, Iowa, Texas and Utah have enacted DEI bans, and 21 similar measures have been proposed in seven other states.

The Manhattan Institute’s Christopher F. Rufo, a leader of the movement to dismantle DEI, justifies his campaign on the basis that such campus programs threaten liberal education and that “when universities have deviated from the wishes of the public, political intervention is not only lawful, but also necessary to ensure democratic governance.”

His perspective flies in the face of Ronald Reagan’s tenet that government can’t solve every ill, advice that inspired generations of conservatives.

Reagan was right, and Rufo is wrong. In the quest to promote vibrant public universities that are open to the widest range of people and ideas, laws banning DEI have no place. In addition to curtailing the ability of institutions to meet the needs of diverse populations, such laws unavoidably chill discussion not just in administrative offices, but across classrooms and quadrangles.

DEI efforts are intended to ensure that increasingly diverse university populations can thrive on campus— that they can participate in all aspects of college life, be protected from stereotyping and bias, and enjoy the tools and support to succeed. In a pluralistic society, it is essential that public institutions serve individuals from all backgrounds and persuasions, knitting together a democratic citizenry.

This is no easy task, and DEI offices have not always gone about it optimally. Some campus DEI programs have leaned into canards about “harmful speech,” wrongly suggesting that promoting diversity on campus requires silencing those who question concepts like affirmative action or immigrants’ rights. On some campuses DEI declarations have been required from candidates for faculty positions, signaling that only certain viewpoints on diversity will pass muster. Elsewhere DEI offices have inappropriately excluded certain forms of bigotry from their purview, or promoted specific ideologies rather than fostering debate on thorny subjects that do not submit to hard and fast answers. But in recent years, DEI has become a useful scapegoat for an array of ambient grievances that go well beyond the programs themselves: political polarization, left-wing ideological extremism, economic hardships and a retreat from emphasis on hard work and merit.

Rather than constructively addressing challenges specific to campus DEI efforts, legislative bans impede the spirit of free inquiry and liberal education that Rufo and his allies claim to champion.

Iowa’s SF 2435, based on model legislation authored by Rufo, restricts campus trainings, programs or activities “designed or implemented with reference to” race, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation. Friday night Shabbat dinners, Black History Month commemorations or Pride marches could be swept up in this blunderbuss proscription. While Utah’s HB 261 ostensibly permits extracurricular and similar activities as long as they are open to all, the law has prompted institutions in the state to dissolve valued LGBTQ+, women’s and other multicultural resource centers, hubs that provided social space, scholarship information and community for those who sought them out.

Florida implemented its own DEI ban, SB 266, with regulations that define DEI as “any program, campus activity, or policy that classifies individuals on the basis of” identity categories “and promotes differential or preferential treatment of individuals” on that basis. This language is so broad it could prohibit campus speakers from touching on social theories related to race or religion, or impede efforts to avoid all-male panels or otherwise ensure that a conference includes speakers with varied backgrounds and experiences. In response to these regulations, the University of North Florida felt compelled to close its interfaith center, whose mission was to “build relationships across differences.”

While most DEI critics say their intent is to home in on administrators without impairing the academic freedom of faculty, restrictive laws risk intruding into the lecture hall and faculty lounge. Some professors in Texas report that SB 17 could hinder the accreditation of certain majors and graduate programs in which national accreditation bodies require DEI work at the department level. The law may also threaten access to federal research grants in scientific and medical fields that require DEI components.

In some instances, legislators who have failed to muster majorities in favor of wholesale DEI bans have adopted heavy-handed tactics, including threats and intimidation to target the programs. In 2023, seeking to circumvent a veto by the state’s governor of proposed anti-DEI legislation, Wisconsin’s State Assembly speaker threatened to withhold up to $800 million from the state university system unless all DEI offices and programs were abolished. To avert fiscal calamity, the state’s Board of Regents gave in, scaling back its DEI initiatives.

By making DEI work taboo, legislators risk undermining the very liberal education they claim to treasure. U.S. universities still remain, in certain respects, as they were originally designed: to serve homogeneous populations composed mostly of middle-class white men. Ensuring diverse students and faculty can partake in all aspects of academic, social and extracurricular experience still requires deliberate effort. It is an investment that boosts open discourse by ensuring that the fullest range of viewpoints are expressed and heard. If the abolition of DEI means less diversity on campus, fewer ethnic and cultural activities, and a heightened sense of isolation for certain students, the result will strip away the richness of college life and classroom debate. To the extent that punitive strategies toward DEI slap the faces of historically marginalized communities, they risk alienating these groups from the idea of liberal education by sending the message that supposedly lofty principles are subject to political whims and vindictiveness.

Evolving university approaches to DEI that better serve the needs of the university without interfering with speech rights or imposing orthodoxies will require a degree of care, nuance and experimentation that cannot be legislatively imposed. As ideologically self-governing institutions founded on free inquiry, universities should interrogate how their DEI work is conducted and implemented, whom it serves, what benefits it brings, and how to ensure it harmonizes with free speech principles. They should create avenues for suggestion and critique and ensure that skeptics can engage without being accused of insensitivity or bigotry. This is not the work of legislation, but it is the work of education.