Many higher education institutions have had swift responses to the mandates from the second Trump Administration about eliminating DEI programs. Higher education entities have tried to respond by rebranding their offices. In theory, these “rebrands” would preserve funding by keeping an institution's ability to receive federal funds. While these efforts are difficult to confirm, often by tracking legislation, they send confusing signals.
However, experts warn against hastily rushing to comply with the administration’s mandates in order to preserve funding pathways. Dr. Mike Hoa Nguyen, an associate professor at UCLA School of Education and Information Studies, said, “It is important to note that the current funding landscape [...] likely violates both Congressional intent and existing statute.”
“Congress explicitly appropriated MSI funding under Title III and V, Parts A and F,” he continued. “For the Administration to unilaterally deem these appropriations unconstitutional, either by withholding the funds entirely (as with Part F) or consolidating them into a single pot under SIP (as with Part A), suggests that it is actually the US Department of Education, not the institutions, that is out of compliance.”
Many leaders are reluctant to talk about decisions around name changes and DEI office rebrands, often citing concerns about the “risky” nature of delving into their rationale. At press time, 6 out of 9 chief diversity officers The EDU Ledger reached out to for comment declined.
Hoa Nguyen said administrators are trying to navigate a complex legal and funding environment. “Current grants are being abruptly terminated, and forcing these institutions to compete for a single pool of SIP funding undermines the foundational purpose of minority serving institutions (MSIs): to serve racially minoritized students," he said. "Ultimately, eliminating these targeted supports, and thus racial equity, appears to be the primary goal of this Administration’s education policies.”
Many institutions sued the Trump Administration to try to hold back policies that disrupt funding. Nyguen noted that while MSIs are currently facing a targeted crisis as federal funding programs are unilaterally terminated, they are not alone. “It is important to remember that MSIs represent a significant portion of our higher education system, and the pressures they feel often signal what is coming for the rest of the sector.”
“The dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and broad federal cuts mean all colleges have significantly fewer resources to educate their students,” he said.
The pressure to adapt has complicated things for students, faculty, and leaders on campus.
Measures like these are discouraging students from wanting to attend institutions in more restrictive states, with data showing 28 percent of students have taken a college or university off of their list “solely due to politics, policies or legal situations in the state where the school was located.” Of these, Texas led the pack with 31% of students saying they will not attend a Texas college, and one in eight high school students in Florida will not consider a public college in the state. And data from Texas shows 20% of students currently enrolled want to leave the state.”
Related, faculty in Florida, South Carolina, and Texas are fleeing because of the political climates in those states, as many have been forced to change their curriculum to avoid teaching specific content within their classrooms.
The Texas A&M University System recently undertook a comprehensive process of redirection and elimination. As a result, hundreds of curricular materials were modified, and six courses were canceled. It was also announced that programs in Women's and Gender Studies would be “winded down.”
But not all institutions are responding by shrinking away from diversity.
Dr. David Jamison, inaugural director of the biomedical engineering program at Villanova University, said, “Key performance indicators have not changed. In fact, the strategic plan at large has not changed. At my institution, our focus has been - broadly stated - to foster an inclusive and caring environment for all students. That goal remains the same, even without the "DEI" moniker. It's the responsibility of the campus leaders to ensure that these KPIs are maintained and continue to be met.”
