The focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at universities has become contentious as institutions grapple with federal scrutiny and public sentiment. Nicole Neily, founder of Defending Education, sheds light on the current landscape of DEI activities across various schools. “I look at… the responses to the Trump administration and the executive orders falling into three buckets,” she explains, categorizing the universities into distinct groups based on their actions and intentions regarding DEI efforts.
The first group consists of what Neily describes as the “proud resisters,” with elite institutions like Princeton and Harvard leading the way. These schools openly defy the push to roll back DEI programs, adopting a defiant stance despite the potential consequences. Neily suggests they are willing to continue their activities under the guise of opposition to federal directives, exemplified by their seemingly superficial commitment to inclusivity that hides a more profound stubbornness.
In the second group—the “biggest category,” according to Neily—are schools that attempt to disguise their ongoing DEI efforts. These institutions are not discontinuing their programs but rather rebranding them. “They are renaming the departments,” Neily observes, stating that roles like “DEI coordinator” become “compliance dean,” attempting to stay under the radar while avoiding backlash. For example, Washington University in St. Louis reportedly relocated its DEI office to a more limited-access area instead of shuttering it entirely. This rebranding is seen as an effort to weather the storm of federal opposition while maintaining the status quo.
Complaints lodged against universities highlight alarming practices associated with DEI initiatives. Recent allegations against Princeton detail a troubling agenda that involves policies impacting female students in ways that raise questions about privacy and equity. Neily correctly identifies these efforts as part of a broader agenda to sustain a particular ideological framework, even if it means skirting public accountability.
The third category, as articulated by Neily, encompasses schools that genuinely seek to comply with federal directives in good faith. She points out that some administrators may have grown weary of the excesses associated with DEI initiatives and welcome a breathing space to reassess these programs. “I think a lot of schools… got pretty frustrated with the excesses of the DEI movement,” Neily explains. This suggests a potential for a more thoughtful and restrained approach to inclusivity as institutions reflect on their mission and values amid federal pressure.
Neily’s assertions indicate a more profound concern within academia about the integrity of these programs. “To me, that demonstrates real mens rea, which is Latin for a guilty mind,” she states. This characterization reflects a belief that members of the “second bucket” are quite aware of the implications of their actions, knowing they must conceal their programs to avoid repercussions from the federal government. The importance of transparency in education is underscored as many institutions tread the tightrope of compliance while trying to uphold their institutional beliefs.
In analyzing the future trajectory of DEI in higher education, Neily expresses cautious optimism. With a significant incoming freshman class and a noted decline in public confidence in traditional academic institutions, families may be reevaluating their choices. The surge in enrollment could shift the dynamics around university programs, pushing schools to reconsider how they operate. “Clearly, we have seen polling… demonstrate a massive loss in public confidence,” she reports, capturing a growing sentiment that could influence institutional practices.
Neily observes that as international student numbers dwindle, universities may face financial pressures that compel them to adapt. “I think what we’re gonna see over the next several years is a number of universities that actually start to close,” she warns. This foreshadowing hints at a challenging road ahead as universities confront not just public perceptions but also economic realities that may push them to ditch or revamp DEI initiatives to stay viable.
The context from the South proves particularly illuminating. Neily notes a trend where students are choosing institutions that align with their values, avoiding schools perceived as overly “woke.” States in this region are banding together to establish their own accrediting bodies, a move intended to counteract prevailing liberal educational frameworks. “They don’t wanna be surrounded by a bunch of pearl-clutching Victorian scolds,” she asserts, revealing a deep-seated desire for an educational environment that balances respect for tradition with a genuine pursuit of academic rigor.
Neily paints a vivid picture of an evolving landscape in higher education, where institutions that cling to outdated or radical ideologies may find themselves struggling in the future. “I think there is a lot more change coming ahead in higher education,” she notes. The call to action for institutions to self-reflect offers a valuable perspective on what lies ahead. Universities that fail to adapt may soon discover just how high the stakes are in the world of education.
"*" indicates required fields
