This Is Not a Drill: How Universities Can Save DEI
By now, many of us have read the headlines: the U.S. Department of Education ruled on February 14, 2025, that race-based scholarships, cultural centers, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs violate civil rights law. Universities that refuse to dismantle these programs risk losing federal funding.
This is not an abstract threat. It is an attempt to unravel decades of progress—an effort to erase the very infrastructure that has helped underrepresented students access, navigate, and succeed in spaces that were never built for them in the first place.
The question is no longer if institutions will comply but who will fight back—and how.
If universities, faculty, and students allow this ruling to take root without resistance, the consequences will stretch far beyond campus walls. This will reshape the workforce, weaken innovation, and permanently narrow the pipeline of talent in STEM, healthcare, business, and public service. This is not just about education. It is about who gets to participate in shaping the future of this country.
Higher education must not back down. But to win this fight, universities need more than words. They need a plan.
Universities Must Take a Public Stand—Loudly and Unapologetically
Silence is complicity. The administration is counting on universities to calculate the cost of speaking out and decide that federal funding is worth more than their commitment to equity. But the cost of inaction—of rolling over in fear—will be far greater. It won’t just dismantle the programs that have helped underrepresented students thrive. It will send a chilling message: universities will abandon their values the moment they are tested.
The institutions that have proudly advertised their commitment to diversity in glossy brochures and multimillion-dollar fundraising campaigns now face a reckoning: were those promises real, or were they just marketing? Every university that claims to stand for inclusion must reject this directive—clearly and unequivocally. No vague corporate messaging. No strategic hedging.
These statements must explicitly acknowledge that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs do not take away opportunities from anyone—they expand them. They must call out the misuse of civil rights law to justify policies that actively harm underrepresented students. And they must affirm a legal and ethical responsibility to protect the very students these programs were built to serve.
Universities Must Do More Than Condemn—They Must Fight in Court
Words alone will not stop this policy. Litigation might. Already, civil rights groups—including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, and MALDEF—are preparing lawsuits to challenge the Department of Education’s ruling. Universities cannot afford to wait and see how this plays out. Sitting on the sidelines is not neutrality—it is enabling. If institutions hesitate, they risk proving that their commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was always performative, a branding exercise rather than a core value.
The path forward is clear. Universities must coordinate with peer institutions to mount joint lawsuits and ensure a united legal front against the federal government. They must provide direct legal and financial support to organizations already leading the charge. And they must make it clear—publicly and unequivocally—that they are prepared to fight this battle in court for as long as necessary.
This strategy is not without precedent. On July 6, 2020, when the Trump administration attempted to force international students out of the country by banning them from staying in the U.S. during remote learning, universities sued. Within days, the administration backed down. On February 21, 2025, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s directive to dismantle DEI programs, arguing it violates constitutional protections. A federal judge has since issued a preliminary injunction blocking parts of the order, citing potential free speech violations. Meanwhile, universities like Yale, the University of Connecticut, and the University of California system are actively assessing legal options to protect their DEI initiatives.
But these cannot be isolated acts of resistance. That same aggressive, coordinated legal strategy must be applied here. The message must be unmistakable: higher education will not be bullied into abandoning its mission of inclusion.
Faculty Must Organize—Beyond Campus Borders
Universities have taken bold stands before: On June 29, 2023, just an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions, Harvard University reaffirmed its commitment to race-conscious initiatives. In January of 2024, Princeton faculty led a multi-university letter demanding action against DEI threats, prompting the university to double down on its commitments. That same pressure must be applied nationwide now.
Faculty hold more power than many realize. Without their labor, research, and expertise, universities cannot function. The administration may hope that faculty remain siloed within their own institutions, too consumed with their own work—or too afraid— to coordinate a larger resistance. But the moment faculty unite across institutions, they become a force the federal government cannot ignore.
Yet fear is not an irrational response. Many faculty are the sole breadwinners for their families. Others have already been personally targeted—listed in Senator Ted Cruz’s “anti-woke” database or singled out in public smear campaigns. Organizing against this directive is not just an act of resistance; for some, it is an act of professional and personal risk. If faculty are to take a stand, universities must also take responsibility. Institutions must provide clear assurances that they will protect academic freedom, defend faculty from political retaliation, and refuse to cave to pressure campaigns designed to intimidate scholars into silence.
But words alone won’t be enough. Faculty senates should take formal action, passing resolutions that explicitly call on universities to refuse compliance. These resolutions are not just symbolic—they create a documented record of opposition that can be cited in lawsuits, media coverage, and public advocacy.
Beyond institutional governance, faculty must use their expertise where it matters most—educating the public. This is not just about fairness—it’s about the economy, the workforce, and the ability of the U.S. to remain competitive in STEM, healthcare, and business. The country is already facing a STEM workforce shortage. If access to higher education narrows, this crisis will deepen. If faculty don’t tell this story, the administration’s false narrative—that DEI is about exclusion rather than expansion—will take hold.
The success of this directive depends on silence. That silence must be broken—but faculty cannot be expected to break it alone. Universities must back them, legally and institutionally. If institutions want faculty to resist, they must stand beside them.
Universities Must Prepare for the Funding Fight Ahead
If the federal government follows through on its threat to revoke funding, universities cannot afford hesitation. A wait-and-see approach is a losing strategy; by the time institutions feel the financial impact, it will be too late to act. The question is not whether universities should seek alternative funding but how aggressively they are willing to fight for it.
State legislatures are emerging as a critical line of defense for universities confronting federal mandates to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. However, these commitments are not automatic, nor are they guaranteed to last. Universities must press lawmakers to treat DEI not as an optional add-on, but as an investment in workforce development, economic mobility, and institutional excellence.
Private donors and philanthropic foundations may help buffer the immediate impact. But let’s be clear: philanthropy is a bandage, not a solution. Private foundations cannot—and will not—replace the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other federal granting agencies that fuel large-scale research and innovation. These agencies fund billions in critical scientific and medical advancements, power entire sectors of the economy, and provide the infrastructure that enables universities to conduct groundbreaking research. Without them, entire fields will shrink, medical discoveries will stall, and our nation’s scientific leadership will erode.
International partnerships offer another path. Universities with strong global research ties should explore funding collaborations that move DEI initiatives beyond the reach of U.S. political interference. Such research coalitions and faculty exchanges could offer a temporary lifeline, mitigating some of the immediate fallout from federal cuts.
But let’s not pretend that alternative funding models will be enough. The administration’s strategy is clear: starve universities into submission, force them to choose between their principles and their survival. Securing stopgap funding now will allow institutions to resist—but it won’t stop the hemorrhaging. No combination of private, state, or international support can replace the scale of federal investment. Compliance is a choice, and so is defiance. But neither will prevent the profound damage of cutting off federal research and education dollars. The only real option is to fight—and fight now.
This Isn’t Just a Higher Ed Fight—It’s a National One
If DEI is dismantled in higher education, the damage won’t stop at universities. The ripple effects will spread far and wide, reshaping industries, workplaces, and entire communities. What happens when medical schools cut diversity-focused programs that train doctors to serve the most vulnerable? When corporations lose the ability to build teams that reflect the populations they serve? When veterans’ hiring preferences are next in line to be erased?
This directive is not just an attack—it’s a test. A probe to see how much resistance universities will muster, how much backlash the administration will have to weather. But here’s the reality: universities are already under attack. Staying silent will not prevent more attacks. If anything, compliance will invite them.
Higher education is the first line of defense. Universities must understand that this isn’t just about their funding—it’s about whether access to opportunity remains a national value or becomes a privilege reserved for the few. The forces pushing this agenda are counting on institutions to comply. They are counting on fear. They are counting on silence. But here’s the catch—there is no cost to speaking up, as long as it happens collectively. The real danger lies in hesitation, in fragmented responses that allow institutions to be picked off one by one. The only way to win is to act—together, decisively, and now.
This is not a drill. It is a defining moment.
Author:
Rebecca Calisi-Rodriguez, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior
Faculty Scholar, Center for the Advancement of Multicultural Perspectives on Science (CAMPOS)
University of California, Davis
Director, Green Care Lab
Bluesky: @rebeccacalisi.bsky.social
Feb 20, 2025
This is not an abstract threat. It is an attempt to unravel decades of progress—an effort to erase the very infrastructure that has helped underrepresented students access, navigate, and succeed in spaces that were never built for them in the first place.
The question is no longer if institutions will comply but who will fight back—and how.
If universities, faculty, and students allow this ruling to take root without resistance, the consequences will stretch far beyond campus walls. This will reshape the workforce, weaken innovation, and permanently narrow the pipeline of talent in STEM, healthcare, business, and public service. This is not just about education. It is about who gets to participate in shaping the future of this country.
Higher education must not back down. But to win this fight, universities need more than words. They need a plan.
Universities Must Take a Public Stand—Loudly and Unapologetically
Silence is complicity. The administration is counting on universities to calculate the cost of speaking out and decide that federal funding is worth more than their commitment to equity. But the cost of inaction—of rolling over in fear—will be far greater. It won’t just dismantle the programs that have helped underrepresented students thrive. It will send a chilling message: universities will abandon their values the moment they are tested.
The institutions that have proudly advertised their commitment to diversity in glossy brochures and multimillion-dollar fundraising campaigns now face a reckoning: were those promises real, or were they just marketing? Every university that claims to stand for inclusion must reject this directive—clearly and unequivocally. No vague corporate messaging. No strategic hedging.
These statements must explicitly acknowledge that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs do not take away opportunities from anyone—they expand them. They must call out the misuse of civil rights law to justify policies that actively harm underrepresented students. And they must affirm a legal and ethical responsibility to protect the very students these programs were built to serve.
Universities Must Do More Than Condemn—They Must Fight in Court
Words alone will not stop this policy. Litigation might. Already, civil rights groups—including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, and MALDEF—are preparing lawsuits to challenge the Department of Education’s ruling. Universities cannot afford to wait and see how this plays out. Sitting on the sidelines is not neutrality—it is enabling. If institutions hesitate, they risk proving that their commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was always performative, a branding exercise rather than a core value.
The path forward is clear. Universities must coordinate with peer institutions to mount joint lawsuits and ensure a united legal front against the federal government. They must provide direct legal and financial support to organizations already leading the charge. And they must make it clear—publicly and unequivocally—that they are prepared to fight this battle in court for as long as necessary.
This strategy is not without precedent. On July 6, 2020, when the Trump administration attempted to force international students out of the country by banning them from staying in the U.S. during remote learning, universities sued. Within days, the administration backed down. On February 21, 2025, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s directive to dismantle DEI programs, arguing it violates constitutional protections. A federal judge has since issued a preliminary injunction blocking parts of the order, citing potential free speech violations. Meanwhile, universities like Yale, the University of Connecticut, and the University of California system are actively assessing legal options to protect their DEI initiatives.
But these cannot be isolated acts of resistance. That same aggressive, coordinated legal strategy must be applied here. The message must be unmistakable: higher education will not be bullied into abandoning its mission of inclusion.
Faculty Must Organize—Beyond Campus Borders
Universities have taken bold stands before: On June 29, 2023, just an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions, Harvard University reaffirmed its commitment to race-conscious initiatives. In January of 2024, Princeton faculty led a multi-university letter demanding action against DEI threats, prompting the university to double down on its commitments. That same pressure must be applied nationwide now.
Faculty hold more power than many realize. Without their labor, research, and expertise, universities cannot function. The administration may hope that faculty remain siloed within their own institutions, too consumed with their own work—or too afraid— to coordinate a larger resistance. But the moment faculty unite across institutions, they become a force the federal government cannot ignore.
Yet fear is not an irrational response. Many faculty are the sole breadwinners for their families. Others have already been personally targeted—listed in Senator Ted Cruz’s “anti-woke” database or singled out in public smear campaigns. Organizing against this directive is not just an act of resistance; for some, it is an act of professional and personal risk. If faculty are to take a stand, universities must also take responsibility. Institutions must provide clear assurances that they will protect academic freedom, defend faculty from political retaliation, and refuse to cave to pressure campaigns designed to intimidate scholars into silence.
But words alone won’t be enough. Faculty senates should take formal action, passing resolutions that explicitly call on universities to refuse compliance. These resolutions are not just symbolic—they create a documented record of opposition that can be cited in lawsuits, media coverage, and public advocacy.
Beyond institutional governance, faculty must use their expertise where it matters most—educating the public. This is not just about fairness—it’s about the economy, the workforce, and the ability of the U.S. to remain competitive in STEM, healthcare, and business. The country is already facing a STEM workforce shortage. If access to higher education narrows, this crisis will deepen. If faculty don’t tell this story, the administration’s false narrative—that DEI is about exclusion rather than expansion—will take hold.
The success of this directive depends on silence. That silence must be broken—but faculty cannot be expected to break it alone. Universities must back them, legally and institutionally. If institutions want faculty to resist, they must stand beside them.
Universities Must Prepare for the Funding Fight Ahead
If the federal government follows through on its threat to revoke funding, universities cannot afford hesitation. A wait-and-see approach is a losing strategy; by the time institutions feel the financial impact, it will be too late to act. The question is not whether universities should seek alternative funding but how aggressively they are willing to fight for it.
State legislatures are emerging as a critical line of defense for universities confronting federal mandates to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. However, these commitments are not automatic, nor are they guaranteed to last. Universities must press lawmakers to treat DEI not as an optional add-on, but as an investment in workforce development, economic mobility, and institutional excellence.
Private donors and philanthropic foundations may help buffer the immediate impact. But let’s be clear: philanthropy is a bandage, not a solution. Private foundations cannot—and will not—replace the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other federal granting agencies that fuel large-scale research and innovation. These agencies fund billions in critical scientific and medical advancements, power entire sectors of the economy, and provide the infrastructure that enables universities to conduct groundbreaking research. Without them, entire fields will shrink, medical discoveries will stall, and our nation’s scientific leadership will erode.
International partnerships offer another path. Universities with strong global research ties should explore funding collaborations that move DEI initiatives beyond the reach of U.S. political interference. Such research coalitions and faculty exchanges could offer a temporary lifeline, mitigating some of the immediate fallout from federal cuts.
But let’s not pretend that alternative funding models will be enough. The administration’s strategy is clear: starve universities into submission, force them to choose between their principles and their survival. Securing stopgap funding now will allow institutions to resist—but it won’t stop the hemorrhaging. No combination of private, state, or international support can replace the scale of federal investment. Compliance is a choice, and so is defiance. But neither will prevent the profound damage of cutting off federal research and education dollars. The only real option is to fight—and fight now.
This Isn’t Just a Higher Ed Fight—It’s a National One
If DEI is dismantled in higher education, the damage won’t stop at universities. The ripple effects will spread far and wide, reshaping industries, workplaces, and entire communities. What happens when medical schools cut diversity-focused programs that train doctors to serve the most vulnerable? When corporations lose the ability to build teams that reflect the populations they serve? When veterans’ hiring preferences are next in line to be erased?
This directive is not just an attack—it’s a test. A probe to see how much resistance universities will muster, how much backlash the administration will have to weather. But here’s the reality: universities are already under attack. Staying silent will not prevent more attacks. If anything, compliance will invite them.
Higher education is the first line of defense. Universities must understand that this isn’t just about their funding—it’s about whether access to opportunity remains a national value or becomes a privilege reserved for the few. The forces pushing this agenda are counting on institutions to comply. They are counting on fear. They are counting on silence. But here’s the catch—there is no cost to speaking up, as long as it happens collectively. The real danger lies in hesitation, in fragmented responses that allow institutions to be picked off one by one. The only way to win is to act—together, decisively, and now.
This is not a drill. It is a defining moment.
Author:
Rebecca Calisi-Rodriguez, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior
Faculty Scholar, Center for the Advancement of Multicultural Perspectives on Science (CAMPOS)
University of California, Davis
Director, Green Care Lab
Bluesky: @rebeccacalisi.bsky.social
Feb 20, 2025
