• The Trump administration’s executive order banning race-based initiatives and the Department of Education’s guidance have forced universities to dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs to retain federal funding.
• Universities across the U.S., including the University of Florida, Colorado State University and the University of Iowa, are overhauling or eliminating DEI programs. Critics argue these initiatives have shifted from addressing systemic inequities to promoting ideological agendas, leading to legal and public backlash.
• DEI initiatives face scrutiny for alleged bias against white and Asian American students and inefficacy in achieving genuine equality. The Department of Education has emphasized enforcing equal treatment under the law, prompting universities to rebrand or eliminate DEI efforts to comply.
• USC has taken swift action to comply with federal guidelines, removing DEI references and restructuring its Office of Inclusion and Diversity.

In a seismic shift for higher education, even California universities — long considered bastions of progressive ideology — are dismantling Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This move comes as the Trump administration tightens its grip on federal funding, demanding an end to race-based initiatives in education. The University of Southern California (USC) is among the latest to scrub DEI references from its websites, rename faculty positions and restructure its diversity offices.

The DEI crackdown: A nationwide trend

The Trump administration’s recent executive order banning DEI programs in federal contracts and its accompanying guidance from the Department of Education have sent shockwaves through academia. The directive, which labels race-based programs as discriminatory, has forced universities to choose between federal funding and their commitment to DEI initiatives. USC, one of California’s most diverse institutions, has responded by removing DEI mission statements, renaming faculty titles and deleting references to scholarships aimed at Black and Indigenous students.

This trend is not isolated to California. The University of Florida recently laid off all DEI staff and reallocated $50 million earmarked for such programs. Colorado State University and the University of Cincinnati have also announced plans to overhaul their race-related programs to comply with federal guidelines. Even the University of Iowa has decided to end dorm communities for Black, Latino and LGBTQ+ students. These actions reflect a broader national reckoning with DEI programs, which critics argue have become vehicles for ideological indoctrination rather than tools for genuine equality.

The rise and fall of DEI

The push for DEI programs gained momentum in the wake of the civil rights movement, with the goal of addressing systemic inequities in education and employment. However, over time, these initiatives have morphed into bureaucratic behemoths that prioritize identity politics over individual merit. The 1996 passage of California’s Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in public institutions, was an early warning sign that such programs could face legal and public backlash.

Today, DEI programs are under fire for their proven bias and inefficacy. Critics argue that they often discriminate against white and Asian American students, as highlighted in the Department of Education’s recent letter. The letter stated that the government would “vigorously enforce the law on equal terms” and no longer tolerate “overt and covert racial discrimination.” This has left universities scrambling to comply, with many opting to rebrand or eliminate DEI initiatives altogether.

USC’s response: Pragmatism or capitulation?

At USC, the response has been swift and strategic. The university has removed DEI references from websites, renamed faculty positions and restructured its Office of Inclusion and Diversity. In a campuswide message, USC President Carol Folt stated that the university would “continue to review our programs and practices to ensure both that their direct relationship to our academic mission is clear, and that we comply fully with evolving legal requirements.”

However, not everyone is convinced that these changes are merely cosmetic. Howard Rodman, a professor at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, criticized the university’s approach, calling it a “capitulation” to political pressure. “Everything I know about authoritarianism is that small compliances only lead to larger compliances, until one is left with neither one’s mission nor one’s dignity,” he said.

Similarly, Amelia Jones, a professor at USC’s Roski School of Art and Design, described the scrubbing of DEI references as a “capitulation.” She questioned whether universities should stand up to federal overreach or quietly comply to avoid scrutiny. “If nobody is going to stand up to this, what are we doing here at a university anyway?” she asked.

The future of DEI

While the dismantling of DEI programs has been met with resistance from some faculty and students, others see it as an opportunity to refocus on merit-based principles. Jerry Kang, a former UCLA vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion, noted that universities often engage in “risk-averse overcompliance” in response to political whims. However, he emphasized the need for institutions to articulate a “muscular conception” of what they stand for in the realm of diversity and inclusion.

As universities navigate this new landscape, the debate over DEI programs is far from over. Some institutions, like Apple, have chosen to retain their DEI initiatives despite external pressure. Others, like USC, are opting for a more cautious approach, rebranding their efforts to avoid federal scrutiny. Regardless of the path they choose, the ultimate goal should be to ensure equal treatment under the law while fostering an environment where all students can thrive based on their abilities and achievements.

In the end, the dismantling of DEI programs may serve as a wake-up call for universities to reevaluate their priorities and focus on creating a truly inclusive environment—one that values diversity of thought as much as diversity of identity. As the nation grapples with these complex issues, one thing is clear: the pursuit of equality must be rooted in fairness, not favoritism.

Sources include:

TheNationalPulse.com

LATimes.com

CampusReform.org