Rolling Back DEI Is an Attack on Higher Education
Our campus is under attack. On Friday, February 14, the Department of Education sent a letter to all federally funded institutions, stating that federal law prohibits the use of race in decisions of “admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” If institutions fail to comply within 14 days, they could “face investigation and loss of federal funding,” according to a press release. Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor, the author of the letter, called it a “victory for justice, civil rights laws, and the Constitution.”
This is really a victory for excessive executive power. The letter follows in the wake of Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Referencing,” and Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The former obliterated any DEI program within the Federal government, including “all DEI, DEIA and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions.” The latter orders the Department of Labor to cease “promoting diversity,” “holding Federal contractors responsible for taking ‘affirmative action,’” and “allowing or encouraging Federal contractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.”
In the letter, Trainor twists two court cases that are foundational to our understanding of DEI today. The 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard established that both the Harvard and UNC admissions processes “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner” and “involve racial stereotyping.” But, according to the same ruling, “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”
In direct contradiction to this statement, Trainor argues that the decision “not only ended racial preferences in school admissions, but articulated a general legal principle on the law of race, color, and national origin discrimination.” He extends this ruling with no legal basis to every aspect of higher education and distorts the meaning of the term “racial discrimination.” Any attempt at racial equity, even through scholarships, is deemed discrimination. How does this affect Historically Black Colleges and Universities? His argument is so weak he must bookmark it with a monetary threat, and butcher another court case to “defend” it.
Trainor writes, “This letter explains and reiterates existing legal requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause, and other relevant authorities.” He is actively using the Civil Rights Act to roll back civil rights for countless Americans in the name of meritocracy. The Act exists to disallow racial discrimination (like segregation), not to prohibit correcting generations of inequalities.
If it stands in court, this strips the diversity from our incoming classes, faculty and staff hiring, and even curriculum. Racial or ethnic origin will not be used in admissions or hiring, thus reducing the diversity of thought and perspective we so value in a liberal arts education. In an age where we experience a degree of polarization never seen before, diversity of thought and background is doubly important.
What is also threatened here is institutional equity. As institutions like Furman grapple with histories of segregation and racial discrimination, the need to adjust factors such as admissions, hiring or curriculum to address historical inequalities will always be significant. The court’s decision to dismantle affirmative action is almost a denial of these inequalities, and a clear cut denial of how much race is tied to one’s “experiences as an individual,” to use the language of the court.
This is happening as a consolidation of executive power from President Trump. Ever since FDR, the presidency has steadily amassed power, adhering less and less to the checks established in the Constitution. Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders at the start of his second term, with almost no resistance in either the House or Senate. The process of judicial review has always been the final check on the presidency and has kept a number of these orders from passing upon signature, but the Trump administration has made it clear that they are uninterested in listening to the courts. Vice President JD Vance in a 2022 interview cited Andrew Jackson when he said, “The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”
What both men miss here is that the Judicial Branch shouldn’t have to enforce anything. The concept of judicial review has existed since the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, which any high schooler could tell you. Jackson was president less than 30 years later, challenging what was not then precedent but still law. Now, JD Vance, with his Yale law degree, is making the willful misconception that judicial review can be ignored after 223 years of its existence within American law and politics.
Presidential ignorance of the Supreme Court is less alarming than the inaction seen in Congress. As Republicans hold majorities in both the House and the Senate, speaker Mike Johnson, among others, have allowed Trump to fuse legislative and executive power. The unwillingness of House Republicans to reach across the aisle has caused Democrats to oppose any bill put forward, even one just to avoid the shutdown looming on March 14. The shutdown would stop pay for federal employees and cease all non-essential functions of Congress, further allowing Trump to legislate from the executive.
What should voters do to stop this stripping away of DEI? On a national level, opinions are voiced with a vote. Furman students had a 2022 midterm voting participation rate of 19.7%, which, judging by the 66% average of college students in 2020, is sizably lower than it should be. The most effective way to hear your voice nationally is by registering and voting.
At Furman, the administration can reclassify and rename former DEI initiatives while keeping the objectives and implementation intact. Similar to the change from the Center for Inclusive Communities to the Center for Interpersonal Connections, this renaming simply removes the now heavily politicized language of DEI. Reclassification erases the stigma from the program while still prioritizing the inclusion of all students at Furman. The letter also does not affect on-campus organizations like the Student Diversity Council, the umbrella organization dedicated to promoting and highlighting the variety of cultures on campus.
Admissions is where the rollbacks will be felt hardest. Our admissions process, in the absence of affirmative action, should then factor in the racial and ethnic identity of students through their experience, to use the language of the court. Identity-based admissions is a healthy way for colleges to curate diversity on campus while still adhering to the court’s decision. Admission with some basis on demographic characteristics allows for a holistic review of students and for them to connect their identity with their competencies. This is not a perfect distinction, as being an ethnic minority would greatly affect experience and identity, but would adhere to the court’s decision and still foster diversity on campus.
Students can fight back through campus culture. An inclusive campus is only as strong as the students make it, and we need to remember that more than ever. We need to support identity-based organizations like Furman University International Students Association, Furman University Chinese Students Association, Afrikiya, and more. Our culture on campus drives change amongst the administration, not the other way around. The best way to fight discrimination is by showing how healthy and strong an inclusive community is.
What we are asking for is change. We’re asking for a future where we are fighting against polarization instead of feeding it. A future where a diversity of perspectives are encouraged and not hidden. One where Furman is a healthy place for all students, not only the predisposed. Only you can make it happen, and every display of empathy, intentionality, and love across differences brings us closer to this future.
