Risk Mgmt. and Ins. Higher Education Scene
The Shift Away from DEI in Higher Education
Brenda Powell Wells | July 1, 2025
Footnotes
1 For more information on DEI programs, see "DEI and Gender Inequity in Insurance and Construction" by Tricia Kagerer, IRMI.com Expert Commentary, September 13, 2024.
2 Zachary Bleemer, "Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility After California's Proposition 209," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, University of California, Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2021.
Several US universities are eliminating or scaling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in response to political pressure and new state laws. Some institutions are closing DEI offices, redirecting DEI funding, or banning DEI initiatives altogether. This trend is driven by legislative actions in various states and directives from the US Department of Education. It saddens me to see higher education eliminating DEI; it also saddens me to see companies eliminating DEI.
On January 20–21, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, effectively dismantling federal DEI programs. These orders abolished historic policies such as Executive Order 11246—mandating affirmative action in federal contracting—and required agencies to terminate DEI mandates, scrub DEI references from websites, remove DEI staff, and impose merit‑based hiring standards. As a result, agencies like the Department of Education, Department of Labor, CIA, Department of Justice, and NASA terminated DEI-related roles. Even some employees with indirect involvement in DEI initiatives were placed on paid leave or dismissed.
At the state level, approximately 119 bills in 29 states have aimed to curtail DEI initiatives in public institutions by February 2025. At least seven such measures have become law in Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, North Dakota, and Ohio. Notably, Ohio's Senate Bill 1 (effective June 27, 2025) bans DEI-based hiring and scholarships, bars faculty strikes, and threatens state funding for institutions that do not comply. Meanwhile, the University of North Carolina system formally repealed DEI programs at all of its campuses in May 2024 following a US Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action.
Higher education institutions have, thus, begun dismantling DEI programming. Columbia University removed mandatory DEI statements from hiring, scaled back inclusive programs, and lost roughly $400 million in federal grants due to noncompliance allegations and harassment concerns. Purdue University shut down its Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, citing legal pressure and budget mandates tied to state legislation.
Opponents of the removal of DEI programs argue that they foster equity and opportunity; proponents of the removal contend that DEI mandates exacerbate reverse discrimination and conflict with meritocratic ideals. Public opinion remains mixed, even as legal and regulatory risks rise for organizations maintaining DEI policies.
Discrimination in America
Let's be honest—our country does not have a history of fairness when it comes to diverse populations, beginning with Native Americans. Look at how we have treated African Americans for centuries. Look at what we did to Japanese citizens during World War II, and don't forget the discrimination against women in the workplace, with disparate pay and opportunities for advancement.
Consider the fact that women did not get the right to have credit cards in their own names until 1974. That's when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed. Before 1974, it was common for banks and lenders to discriminate against women, often requiring them to have a husband or male relative cosign for a credit card or loan, regardless of their own income or creditworthiness.
The ECOA made it illegal to discriminate in lending based on sex or marital status. This was a significant step toward women's financial independence and a pivotal moment in the fight for economic equality. It took a law being passed to eliminate discrimination against women in lending. Had that law not been passed, women might still be experiencing discrimination and prejudice.
So, we've only had the right to borrow money in our own names for 51 years. (I'm 57, so my mother was not able to get credit in the early part of my life!) No one was going to change their behavior toward women until a law was passed. Isn't that sad? Let's face it, sometimes it takes legal action to make people treat others fairly.
The DEI Program Debate
DEI programs are not designed to promote unqualified people to positions of power. DEI's focus—its function, if you will—is to ensure that those who are female, LGBTQ+, or of color do not get passed over for opportunities they are qualified for. 1
I have heard the argument against DEI. It usually boils down to someone who is perceived to be unqualified being selected for a job over someone who was perceived to be qualified. "She/he was a DEI hire," is how they phrase it. Just because someone had certain demographic characteristics, that does not mean they were hired solely for those characteristics. No employer wants turnover, so I am convinced that no employer intentionally hires people solely on the basis of demographics. To say that someone was a "DEI hire" often undermines legitimate achievements and accomplishments.
Has someone ever been promoted without merit and only due to their demographics? Sure! But, as an example, hiring an unqualified straight person over a qualified member of the LGBTQ+ community is doing the exact same thing in reverse. And I've seen lots of unqualified people in roles that they aren't cut out for—it's not limited to marginalized groups.
In 36 years in the classroom, I have taught all kinds of students—all ages, races, ethnicities, and types of sexual orientation. DEI programs were designed to help these students get a fair shot at education and employment opportunities. I have personally seen employers pass over perfectly qualified people of color. I've experienced employers blatantly saying, "We want a male for this role." I have seen LGBTQ+ students ostracized and excluded. And let's not forget folks with disabilities, who were also included in DEI. DEI programs attempt to level the playing field for those who are not cisgender white males. What will be the actual effect of the dissolution of these programs? That remains to be seen.
Conclusion
The dismantling of DEI may have long‑term implications for representation, equity, and social inclusion in the US. The cancellation of DEI initiatives tells employees that the needs of marginalized employees are no longer a priority, thus leading to decreased trust, engagement, and retention. It also results in fewer support structures and community resources for employees. These groups will have slower progress, higher turnover, and widening pay gaps. Research from the University of California at Berkeley 2 found that bans on race-conscious admissions sharply decreased Black and Latino enrollment, graduation, and graduate school attendance—without affecting white and Asian students to the same extent.
I fear that eliminating DEI programs will have a disproportionate impact on women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people, disabled individuals, and low-income students—leading to diminished representation, poorer health outcomes, eroded trust, and long-term social inequality. Is that really what we want for our higher education institutions?
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.