As President-elect Donald Trump prepares for his second term, his administration’s renewed attack on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives could mark a turning point for higher education in the United States. Diversity initiatives are already suffering as a result of the first Trump administration, and as universities brace for his second term, the future of these programs and the progress they represent hangs in the balance.
DEI programs arose as a strategy to combat systemic inequities in education, the workplace and federal agencies. Public and private institutions began to utilize DEI initiatives following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandated the desegregation of schools, outlawed employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. DEI took the form of racial sensitivity training, recruiting and hiring people from disadvantaged backgrounds and the creation of affinity-based clubs — all aimed at creating more inclusive environments. Over time, these initiatives have increased opportunities in education and employment for LGBTQ+ communities, communities of color, veterans, women and those from low income families. These programs represent the fight against decades of exclusion.
Though DEI programs are meant to bring people together, they have created division in American politics. In line with calls to get rid of critical race theory and affirmative action, DEI has become the next target for conservatives, hitting it with a heap of anti-DEI lawsuits and anti-DEI legislation. Trump has not only championed this opposition, but has pledged to escalate it.
Trump often touts the 2023 repeal of affirmative action in college admissions by his far-right Supreme Court — a decision which has led to the plummeting of or “which has caused Black and Latino enrollment at NYU to plummet.” DEI programs are different on every campus, but by and large focus their efforts on recruitment, admissions, curriculum and special programs for underrepresented student groups. At NYU, current DEI initiatives include student-identity-based organizations, offices, certifications and initiatives. Based on Trump’s campaign promises and the detailed policy proposals of Project 2025, we can expect that he will spearhead efforts to reverse higher educations’ progress toward racial equality in higher education, mainly by pulling funding from universities that have any DEI programs.
In September 2020, he signed an executive order banning critical race theory from being taught in federal agencies, labeling it a “divisive” ideology. Biden has since repealed the order, but it is likely that Trump will reinstate the policy when he is back in power.
Trump’s current agenda includes amending anti-discrimination law to remove “disparate impact liability.” This amendment would make it impossible to challenge policies that appear race-neutral but have discriminatory effects, such as unnecessary hiring tests that disproportionately screen out people from protected groups. He could sign another executive order that requires federal contractors to ensure equal opportunity, take legal action against organizations that engage in “racial classifications and quotas” or “DEI trainings that promote critical race theory.” He will almost surely abolish DEI offices, staff and trainings within the federal government — which he has done before.
Trump has threatened to ban books discussing slavery and gender and eliminate all school administrator positions that oversee DEI initiatives. These financial threats include imposing budget reconciliation, taxing endowments and to “fine institutions ‘up to the entire amount of their endowment.” This, understandably, has left universities and K-12 schools holding their breath over the threatening political climate to come.
These attacks on DEI are part of a larger effort to suppress discussions of race, gender and inequality — seen as central to what conservatives decry as “woke ideology.”
While DEI initiatives often fall short, functioning as superficial remedies that fail to confront systemic inequalities or challenge entrenched institutional power, they at least signal recognition of inequities and take a step toward addressing them. A presidential administration that not only demonizes these efforts but denies the existence of racial inequality altogether risks deepening injustices and erasing the possibility of progress.
NYU should use its voice to defend DEI publicly. The slew of anti-DEI lawsuits that came out after the reversal of affirmative action have led many organizations to disguise and hide their DEI practices — silence that has been seen as the total abandoning of DEI. NYU should use its resources to be a loud supporter of DEI, through public statements, involvement in DEI litigation and support for civil rights groups during Trump’s second term.
Though the future of DEI looks grim, it would be a mistake for NYU or any other institution to throw in the towel. While Trump’s administration will likely try to curtail many DEI initiatives, not all forms of DEI will become unlawful and therefore not all should be abandoned. While compliance is necessary, the university must carefully navigate between practices that directly violate new laws or rulings and those that remain permissible. NYU can still expand their outreach in hiring practices without specific quotas and can support degree completion programs that are available to all, ensuring they align with compliance requirements while advancing the university’s broader mission of inclusion. In the same vein, affinity groups and cultural organizations can still thrive under institutional support, provided they are open and accessible to all who wish to join.
As a private institution, NYU retains significant autonomy to develop inclusive practices within the scope of the law. Organizations have a responsibility to be resilient and creative in their commitment to equity, and NYU can serve as a model for how institutions can continue to foster diversity, equity and inclusion, even in a more hostile political climate.
Diversity is a strength. To deny universities the ability to counter historical discrimination is to widen the already large racial gap in higher education. Our innovation, academics and our social wellbeing only improves as diversity increases. or only improves with more diversity. Without it, we are not only denying educational and economic opportunities to the historically marginalized, but to us all.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Mehr Kotval at [email protected].
