While the Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) is no longer to be tolerated in American education, now some states are picking up a second wind, propagating new anti-DEI legislation and regulations themselves. 
 

When the Department of Education (ED) handed down a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) in February of this year instructing colleges and universities, along with K-12 schools, to reaffirm commitment to Title VI and Equal Protection Clause nondiscrimination laws or risk losing federal funding, response from the courts was swift. A federal court blocked the DCL from being enforced by the ED, however, the DCL and further Executive Orders (EOs) spurred other ongoing investigations into DEI practices which have led to cuts in federal funding and harsher restrictions on certain institutions. 
 

Recently, two states have decided to take different approaches to the DEI crackdown in education via state legislation and court decisions. 
 

Alabama Senate Bill 129 (SB 129), which was signed into law by Alabama governor Kay Ivey back in March, bans public colleges and universities from funding DEI initiatives, as well as requiring higher ed institutions, K-12 schools, and state agencies to rid themselves of mandated training, coursework, etc., that promotes “divisive concepts.” Alabama SB 129 echoes language of bills already passed in Florida, Ohio, and Texas that ban funding of DEI in public institutions. 
 

Just last week, a federal judge declined to temporarily block the enforcement of SB 129 after a lawsuit was brought against it. The plaintiffs in the case slammed the decision, citing infringement on academic freedom and ability of professors to provide a comprehensive education. Though an article from Higher Ed Dive explains that there are “carve-outs” within SB 129, which “says that the language does not bar public colleges from teaching or discussing divisive concepts ‘in an objective manner and without endorsement as part of a larger course of academic instruction.’” Complaints fall short when the truth of the matter comes to light—academic freedom is not the issue, proponents of DEI ideology want approval and funding to further their discriminatory ideas.  
 

Compare this to the decision handed down by U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, who ruled in the District Court of Maryland last Thursday that the ED acted unlawfully in its issuing of the February 14 DCL and the April 3 order “ED Requires K-12 School Districts to Certify Compliance with Title VI and Students v. Harvard as a Condition of Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.” This came after the aforementioned jointly issued decision by three federal courts back in late April which had already temporarily paused enforcement. Judge Gallagher explained in her ruling that “The government did not merely remind educators that discrimination is illegal; it initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct.” According to a Chronicle of Higher Education article, an ED spokesperson responded to the decision by saying that Judge Gallagher’s ruling “won’t impede the agency’s ability to ‘enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level.’”
 

Ultimately, the takeaway is that states are being pressured into making decisions regarding antidiscrimination laws and continued use of DEI, or else the federal government will decide for them. This will, hopefully, in turn, spur action on a more localized level to safeguard Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.
 

In a time where students are feeling the pressure to conform to more progressive views or face repercussions, efforts to address ideology run rampant on campus are more important than ever. As an example, according to a study released by Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman, which was conducted from 2023–25 at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan, an astounding 88 percent of students said “yes” when asked the question “Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically?”
 

What is to be done then? It is clear that DCLs will not hold up against court decisions, for either side of the aisle. While EOs and ED mandates get the ball rolling as far as deeper investigations into DEI, anti-Semitism, and indoctrination efforts in higher ed, the ED should begin formal rulemaking procedures to ensure federal anti-DEI reforms survive the courts. Lawsuits and civil rights complaints may further aid reform efforts, while advocacy organizations like the National Association of Scholars and perhaps even a few colleges and universities themselves will likely be the harbingers of change within academia.   
 

Until next week.

About the NAS