Standing Up to the New Segregationists

Universities are under intense scrutiny as the Trump administration moved quickly in issuing executive orders and agency guidance seeking to put an end to all their diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs. A number of universities have moved just as quickly in response, indicating in writing and in words to their faculty, staff and students that they intend to scrub websites, rename programs and even end positions and initiatives that are currently serving underrepresented students, including students of color; trans, queer and nonbinary students; disabled students; and undocumented students.

Even as we have been heartened to see some higher education groups sue the administration over its DEIA orders—earning a preliminary injunction on Friday—we are horrified at some universities’ willingness to erase targeted communities in response to these dehumanizing actions by the executive branch. We believe this rush to comply is a sign that universities are willing to become an institutional wing of the new segregationists.

To be clear, the opposite of welcoming diversity is supporting segregation. The opposite of moving toward equity is hoarding resources. The opposite of being more inclusive is exclusion. Universities need to decide if they will capitulate to demands for segregation by excluding targeted communities from opportunities in order to hoard resources by those using anti-DEIA rhetoric.

The premise of these executive actions is that society must not provide any support to or acknowledgment of marginalized communities. To commit to access for those who have been historically denied a place in education has been articulated as an unthinkable crime by this administration. As universities accept this premise by rushing to comply with executive actions, we ask if they were ever truly committed to disrupting higher education’s role in hoarding resources for white supremacy.

Race-conscious policies were created to counter the hoarding of resources by people who had written into law racist policies of exclusion. These orders are from a new brand of segregationists—ones who are committed to rolling back civil rights. When universities comply, they become part of the new segregationists.

As Victor Ray writes, “Behind the anti-diversity movement’s performative worries about qualification is a not-so-subtle subtext implying that any person of color in a position of authority is unqualified.” These executive actions create a vision of the country that is segregationist, that “rests on, and furthers, pernicious stereotypes about women and Black people,” and where no one is assumed competent except white males.

The logical conclusion of that is exactly what we saw with the airplane crash in Washington, D.C., which Trump blamed on the very existence within the aviation workforce of people with disabilities and people of color, without evidence or cause. While the Trump administration continues to lay blame for the ills of the nation anywhere but on themselves, universities must contend with the fact that the capacity to fabricate an enemy is at an all-time high and decide if they will participate in this dehumanization.

We remind universities of what happened in the fight against race-conscious education at the end of the first Trump administration. The far right falsely named race-conscious education as critical race theory. And instead of fighting back, many academics played a game of definition, claiming that K-12 schools do not teach critical race theory. In doing so, they accepted the right’s framing and tried to outmaneuver opponents of race-conscious education based on faulty definitions. Instead of claiming what CRT is, they got into a circular argument that cornered them into constantly defining what CRT is not.

However, these efforts toward clarity did not stop the right from coming after race-conscious education. Some of us argued from the start that we needed to stop accepting the framing of whether or not CRT was being taught and instead argue the underlying principles—that students needed and deserved race-conscious, queer-affirming and accessible education. However, many scholars stuck with the line that “we are not teaching CRT.” In the end, this maneuver did not save us, because opponents of race-conscious education never cared about CRT. Their primary concern was preventing historical accuracy because it stands as an existential threat to white supremacy.

The attacks universities face are not made in good faith. Our attackers will not stop with DEIA: They want to dismantle public education because they hate race-conscious and inclusive policies and because they hate the larger endeavor of public education. What university leaders must realize is they are coming for your funding, no matter what. They are coming for the Department of Education, no matter what. Choosing to erase the existence of targeted communities is a losing strategy. The new segregationists are coming for public education no matter what, because it is a civil right that multiple targeted communities fought for.

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Legacy Project wrote recently, “We are angry as we see, each day, that the freedoms we fought for and have come to expect are under assault at every level. Thus, we are compelled to speak; to ring an alarm bell if you will. After all, for all that we draw on from our past and carry with us today, we do not live in the past but for the future.” We cannot comply with the new segregationists who are trying to eliminate civil rights gains made by SNCC and our ancestors.

What SNCC Legacy offers us is a way forward, a way to look to past fights to form our future vision. We are already witnessing resistance to the administration’s illegal, unconstitutional and dangerous orders, from security staff who will not allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials into buildings to K-12 schools that are declaring that they will be safe spaces for their trans and immigrant youth to Quaker groups filing suit over allowing ICE into houses of worship. We see the impacts when folks articulate their outrage, as when an Air Force training course featuring lessons on the Tuskegee Airmen was reinstated after officials initially attempted to scrub their existence and the Office of Management and Budget memo freezing a broad swath of federal funding was rescinded after a general public outcry and legal action.

The lawsuit by higher education groups challenging the DEIA orders is good, but it is just a start. Other campus leaders, notably many of them community colleges, have created collectives to take action. A small group of universities has reaffirmed their commitment to the historically marginalized communities that they serve. We appreciate these efforts and remind the rest: Universities must not only refuse to comply with unjust, dehumanizing practices, they must contribute, as Jonathan Flowers writes, to creating the conditions “that would forestall the development of bigotry.”

When universities stay silent or indicate their willingness to comply with executive orders that seek to dehumanize anyone who is not white, male and cisgender, they are sending a message—particularly when those same universities send out multiple messages about how to protect their research funding and grants. We understand that universities are under a myriad of legal and financial threats, and it is no excuse—you either stand with the targeted groups or you become part of the new segregationists, willing to sacrifice those groups to save your bottom line.

Executive orders do not create laws—they signal intentions. Complying does the labor for the administration so they don’t have to do the legislative work—which they don’t want to do because it is highly unpopular. More importantly, erasing these programs and terms is an attempt to erase our humanity. Students of color; trans, queer and nonbinary students; disabled students; and undocumented students have the right to access the resources of the university. Integrated schools and race-conscious education improve outcomes, including test scores and graduation rates, for all students. Universities are lucky to have us in the first place.

Universities have more power than they are pretending to have in this moment. Their acts of cowardice are baffling. Universities can and should join together and use all tools in their considerable toolbox to fight these attacks on their most vulnerable members. While we are happy to witness the lawsuit against the executive orders, there are many other things universities can do to stand up for groups targeted by this administration. And though we know DEIA will not save us, nor will these institutions save us, there is a collective of students, staff and faculty of color, as well as trans, queer and nonbinary, disabled and undocumented members of the university who are willing to fight.

Our message to the university is that now is the time to stand against the new segregationists and stand up for your marginalized faculty, staff and students. If you don’t, you will have reminded us that you have never intended to do right by us, even though we make you better.