The anti-diversity pressure intensified early last year when the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter asserting that many DEI initiatives were unlawful and warning educational institutions at all levels that by continuing such programs they risked losing federal funding. The directive in the letter offered little clarity about what constituted DEI or which activities ostensibly violated federal law.
Nevertheless, facing uncertainty and threats of financial penalties, many institutions removed DEI language from websites and policy manuals, eliminated staff positions, renamed offices and scaled back programs addressing race, gender, disability access and workforce equity. An administrative mentee I worked with at a public college in Florida was so confused that she didn’t know if she could even recruit potential students from a nearby predominately Black high school. Many leaders adopted the most cautious course — ending initiatives that had long supported recruitment, accessibility compliance, community outreach and student success.
The tide started to turn last year when federal courts and judges began to issue injunctions and opinions against the Trump administration, which triggered automatic appeals. But this January the Department of Education dropped an appeal in a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and others involving DEI. A federal judge in Maryland who heard the case found that the administration had not followed proper procedures and that the underlying policy chilled free speech in the classroom. AFT President Randi Weingarten said that the administration had “tried to take a hatchet to 60 years of civil rights laws that were meant to create educational opportunity for all kids.”
Perhaps the biggest about-face by the feds occurred Feb. 3, when the Department of Education stipulated in a New Hampshire federal court that it would no longer enforce its directive threatening K-12 schools and colleges with the loss of federal funding if they maintained DEI programs. In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association and several other interested parties had sued. Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, said the case’s outcome ensures that educators can engage in scholarship where “race, gender, and the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion appear, without fear.”
Similar scenarios have played out in other states. On Feb. 6, for example, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison settled a lawsuit with the Trump administration, which had cited concerns about DEI initiatives in threatening to withhold federal education funding. The settlement, part of a multistate lawsuit filed in April 2025, ensures $530 million for Minnesota’s K-12 schools while DEI programs continue.
These developments will likely extend beyond education and influence other diversity initiatives operated by state and local governments, including minority and female business enterprise (MFBE) programs, contract compliance departments and diversity offices. There are other factors as well: Legal practitioners and scholars have argued that MFBE programs differ from DEI — conceptionally, programmatically and legally. They are “nondiscrimination programs,” says Rodney Strong, a Georgia-based attorney who helped craft Atlanta’s MFBE program and later conducted disparity studies for Atlanta and Georgia to defend them. “They have a different legal history from DEIs and from Harvard University’s and the University of North Carolina’s cases,” he added, referring to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling limiting affirmative action in higher education admissions.
Public officials who support equal opportunity have reason to be optimistic, though guardedly so. The New Hampshire case, for example, focused a lot on process and procedural questions rather than basic issues of free speech, fairness and addressing historical wrongs. But it seems reasonable to assume that the courts have given educational institutions — and by implication, other public programs — renewed latitude to maintain or reinstate their diversity initiatives without fear of federal reprisal.
As public officials consider restoring or expanding such initiatives, they should ensure that the programs are carefully designed and fully compliant with the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Equally important, officials should strengthen evaluation and accountability measures for all diversity initiatives. Robust data collection and program assessment will provide the empirical foundation needed to defend DEI efforts if — or more accurately, when — they face legal or political challenges again.
I say “when” because the Trump administration continues to deploy alternative tactics to undermine DEI efforts. The Associated Press recently reported, for example, that under pressure from the White House, 31 public and private universities are severing ties with the PhD Project, a nonprofit dedicated to increasing the number of racial minorities earning doctoral degrees. Among the major institutions reportedly retreating are Arizona State University, Ohio State University, the University of Michigan and my alma mater, Emory University.
With recent court rulings reaffirming the legality of DEI efforts in education, it is difficult to understand why so many institutions continue to bend a knee to political pressure rather than rely on the rule of the law. The decision to maintain or strengthen diversity initiatives ultimately belongs to public officials and the citizens they serve. The question before us is no longer hypothetical; it is real and moral. Are diversity, equity and inclusion fundamental principles of American democracy, or are they expendable under political pressure? Are they embedded in the DNA of a nation built by immigrants striving toward equal opportunity? The courts have provided a constitutional lifeline.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
