Across several states all around America, policymakers have moved aggressively to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs from public colleges and universities. The argument has often been that DEI initiatives create division, promote preferential treatment, or disadvantage certain groups of students. As a result, institutions have been instructed to dismantle offices, remove language, and distance themselves from programs associated with equity and inclusion.
Yet at the same time, many of these same political leaders are calling for investigations into alleged discrimination against white and Asian students in areas such as admissions, scholarships, and campus programming.
That raises an interesting question. If institutions are being asked to investigate discrimination and ensure that certain groups are not treated unfairly, isn’t that the very work DEI frameworks were originally designed to support?
The national policy environment suggests just how significant this shift has become. Since 2023, lawmakers in more than 30 states have introduced legislation restricting or banning DEI programs in public colleges and universities, signaling one of the most significant policy shifts in higher education governance in decades. At the same time, political leaders across the country continue to call for investigations into whether certain student groups are being treated unfairly in admissions, scholarships, and campus programs.
For years, DEI initiatives in higher education were meant to help institutions examine whether policies and practices created barriers for particular groups of students. The work often involved reviewing data, addressing disparities in access or outcomes, and ensuring that all students were treated fairly regardless of race, gender, background, or ability. In many cases, the goal was simply to help institutions live up to the civil rights principles that higher education has long been expected to uphold.
Civil rights protections have never applied to only one group. They apply to everyone. Federal law is clear on this point. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any institution that receives federal funding. Colleges and universities do not have the option of ignoring discrimination claims. If allegations arise, institutions are legally obligated to investigate and respond.
This is what makes the current moment in higher education somewhat paradoxical. On one hand, the language and structures associated with DEI are being removed. On the other hand, the expectation that institutions monitor discrimination, investigate inequities, and protect students from unfair treatment remains very much in place.
When political leaders call for investigations into discrimination against certain groups of students, it tells me something important: many of them may not have fully understood what DEI was in the first place. Because the moment you ask a college to examine whether a group is being treated unfairly and to correct it if they are, you are essentially asking that institution to do the very work DEI was designed to do.
In practice, colleges and universities cannot simply stop paying attention to issues of fairness and equity. The student population itself reflects the growing diversity of the country. Today, students of color make up roughly 45 percent of all undergraduate enrollment in the United States, according to national enrollment data. Ensuring that policies and practices are fair across a diverse student body is not an ideological exercise. It is a practical responsibility of modern higher education.
So if the work itself must continue, what exactly changed?
Perhaps the real debate was never about whether colleges should address discrimination. Very few people would argue that institutions should ignore inequity or allow unfair treatment to go unchecked. Instead, the debate may have been about the label attached to that work.
Over time, DEI became a politically charged term. In some circles, it came to be viewed as synonymous with helping Black students specifically or advancing a particular ideological agenda. That perception fueled significant backlash. The phrase itself became the target.
But the underlying mission of fairness and equal opportunity is not new, nor is it limited to one group. Historically, many of the policies that evolved into modern DEI frameworks were rooted in civil rights efforts to ensure that institutions treated all people with dignity and fairness. The goal was not exclusion. The goal was accountability.
This is why the current policy environment can feel contradictory. When states eliminate DEI structures but still demand that institutions investigate discrimination, monitor equity in access, and ensure fairness across racial groups, they are effectively asking universities to continue doing the work without using the name that previously described it.
In other words, higher education may be entering what could be described as a post-DEI era where the terminology changes but the responsibilities remain.
As a campus leader responsible for ensuring that every student has a fair opportunity to succeed, I see firsthand that the work of equity is not theoretical. It is operational. It shows up in policies, student services, admissions practices, and in how institutions respond when fairness is questioned.
At the end of the day, colleges and universities cannot abandon their obligation to create environments where every student has a fair opportunity to succeed. Whether the work is called DEI, civil rights compliance, student success, or institutional fairness, the core principle is the same.
If the current moment teaches us anything, it may be that the real debate was never truly about fairness in higher education. It was about the label attached to the work.
And if institutions are still expected to investigate inequity and protect students from discrimination, then the paradox of the post-DEI era becomes clear.
The work continues, even if the name does not.
Dr. Pernell H. Goodwin is vice president of Copiah-Lincoln Community College’s Natchez Campus.
