Many colleges around the country that have spent years building up their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are rethinking – and in some cases dismantling – those efforts.

Republican policymakers are pushing back hard on higher education programs that use racial preferences in college admissions and hiring. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled race-conscious admissions unconstitutional in June 2023, based on lawsuits filed on behalf of Asian American students who alleged that they were denied admission to Harvard University in Massachusetts and the University of North Carolina in favor of less-qualified applicants of other races.

Now, many states are defunding and banning DEI-related programs and hiring practices in higher education.

At the federal level, President Donald Trump has signed executive orders ending federal DEI initiatives during the first few weeks of his second term. In a Feb. 14 "Dear Colleague" letter, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights gave preschools, K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions that receive department funding two weeks to eliminate race-based programs or risk losing that funding, citing the Supreme Court decision.

The letter, written by Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, prohibits using race in "decisions related to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies and all other aspects of student, academic and campus life."

Trainor said the department "will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent."

Steven Bloom, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, a Washington, D.C-based membership organization that works with higher ed institutions to shape public policy, questioned the letter's timing about 20 months after the high court's ruling.

"Institutions should have been, and I believe were, taking steps to ensure that they were in full compliance with their legal obligations, whether they're based in statutes or in the case law (under) the Supreme Court's decision," he says.

"So the ... letter really is doing the exact opposite of what it says it's about, which is to clarify. In fact, it's not clarifying. It's creating huge uncertainty and confusion and I'm sure deep anxiety on campuses."

Here's what to know about the push from states and the federal government to ban DEI initiatives and the possible effects on colleges and students.

As of February 2025, 119 bills have been introduced in 29 states to curtail DEI initiatives at public colleges, according to data compiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education. The bills aim to prohibit using federal or state funding to support DEI offices or staff at public colleges; requiring diversity training; using diversity statements in hiring and promotion; using identity-based preferences in hiring and admissions; or mandating classes that promote concepts like systemic racism and reparations.

Legislation has officially passed in 12 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

Paulette Granberry Russell, president and CEO of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, says the legislation and the Supreme Court decision are "dismantling at least 50 years of slow, incremental progress in addressing the needs of diverse students in higher education."

The executive orders and letter also "further seek to dismantle the principles of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility within the federal government and beyond," she says. "Not only do they chill free speech, they have grossly misrepresented such efforts as discriminatory, and the failure to cease efforts that advance opportunities for all students has been threatened with the loss of federal funding for institutions committed to inclusivity."

Beginning in the 1960s, outreach efforts like Upward Bound – first established through the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 – and other federal TRIO programs now housed under the Education Department were created to promote the educational success of students of color. That included opportunities to attend predominantly white schools.

For colleges, initiatives evolved from outreach to efforts to create a more inclusive and welcoming campus environment, extending from admissions to student affairs. Some diversity offices also came out of the offices for equal opportunity and civil rights, which focused on Title IX and disability accommodations, as well as from advocacy efforts and responses to the Black Lives Matter movement and the 2020 death of George Floyd, experts say.

Critics of DEI initiatives say they have become divisive and, for public schools, a waste of taxpayer money. Some also say DEI can be achieved in nondiscriminatory ways.

Proponents, however, say current DEI efforts in education have helped create a sense of belonging, build inclusive learning environments and increase student success on college campuses. Many schools offer support programs and resources for various identity groups, including LGBTQ+ centers and veteran affairs offices, and focus on recruiting faculty members from historically underrepresented racial groups.

Some research indicates a correlation between increased faculty diversity and positive overall graduation rates for underrepresented minority students.

Outside of representation, Granberry Russell says "campus diversity, equity and inclusion efforts represent a commitment to excellence, and such efforts are intended to prepare all students for their roles in a diverse society post-graduation. We do this by building an inclusive curriculum, providing opportunities for engagement and dialogue, and protecting academic freedom so our faculty can engage in research and teaching that addresses the needs of a diverse society in the global context."

Colleges have taken steps such as eliminating DEI offices and removing DEI-related statements from their websites.

Iowa State University of Science and Technology, for instance, closed its DEI office in July 2024 to comply with state law that "prohibits public universities from establishing, maintaining or staffing" a DEI office.

After Trump's recent executive orders, the Rutgers University Center for Minority Serving Institutions in New Jersey canceled its online "HBCUs and Registered Apprenticeship Mini-Conference," and the United States Military Academy at West Pointin New York axed clubs centered around gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality, such as the Asian-Pacific Forum Club, the National Society of Black Engineers, and the Society of Women Engineers.

In response to the "Dear Colleague" letter, Bloom suspects many institutions "will probably overcorrect because they're trying to avoid risk in a very uncertain and troubling environment for them."

Neal McCluskey, director of the center for educational freedom at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, wrote in support of banning "affirmative action" at public colleges: "Public institutions – government institutions – must be colorblind, while private institutions must have the freedom to deal with matters of race as they see fit. The country obviously has a troubled past when it comes to treating people of all racial groups equally, while human beings have diverse needs and desires. Private institutions must retain the freedom to undertake myriad approaches to deal with the impacts of our history, and to best serve the diverse needs and desires of millions of unique people."

The "Dear Colleague" letter's footnote indicates that it "does not have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards." It is policy guidance, which administrations give since the executive branch has power to enforce laws, not make them.

Jeremy C. Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a nonprofit free speech organization, says the letter intends to "cause colleges and universities to preemptively close their diversity programs out of fear of what the federal government might do, and there is some evidence that that may be starting to happen."

Not all colleges are jumping to eliminate their DEI programs and initiatives, however. After a review, Oregon State University "determined with confidence that OSU-sponsored programs and curricula are fully compliant with all state and federal laws, including Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act," according to a statement.

The Education Department letter outlining DEI prohibitions could have a "chilling effect" on student behavior, says Jamie Merisotis, president and CEO of the Lumina Foundation, an Indiana-based organization that promotes access to postsecondary education.

"We need the education system to serve more people better," he says. "And in serving more people better, we need to make sure that includes all Americans and that fairness is a part of what that entails. So I am concerned that students may get information because of things like the (Supreme Court ruling and) this recent 'Dear Colleague' letter, and interpret that as being a negative in terms of their aspirations for college."

Granberry Russell says bans and defunding of DEI programs are "silencing students' voices," denying them access to curriculum they may have been interested in and may affect the future workforce needs of employers, especially in STEM fields.

"Higher education plays a role in preparing students to develop into competitive and successful workers in STEM fields, including artificial intelligence," she adds. "It is imperative that higher education cultivates and strengthens strategies to enrich and expand its underserved pools of talent, including women, for STEM and AI fields. Equity, diversity and inclusion efforts are critical to building our capacity in these areas, which is essential for all industries."

Some experts advise students to use their First Amendment rights to express their views on the policy changes.

"Student voices are very, very powerful," Young says. They "are the customers of public universities and private universities, which are also affected by some of the federal policies. And their voice really has the ability to turn the tide if lawmakers recognize that large numbers of students in their states are unwilling to support these attacks (and) are willing to look elsewhere for education if their education is restricted in their home state. That will make a difference."

Searching for a college? Get our complete rankings of Best Colleges.