In recent years, the United States has seen a surge in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts across various industries and institutions. This progress has been met with resistance and pushback from the Trump administration, which has continuously attacked these initiatives. The latest attack comes in the form of a “Dear Colleague” letter from the U.S. Department of Education, which has raised concerns among legal scholars.
The letter, issued on September 22, 2020, states that the Department of Education will no longer enforce the Obama-era guidance on affirmative action in college admissions. This guidance, issued in 2011, encouraged universities to consider race as a factor in admissions in order to promote diversity on campus. The Trump administration’s decision to rescind this guidance has been met with criticism and concern from legal scholars who fear it will have a negative impact on DEI efforts in higher education.
Two legal scholars, Professor Terence J. Pell and Professor Vinay Harpalani, have recently published an article in Social Science Space, unpacking the implications of this anti-DEI guidance on higher education. In their article, they discuss the potential consequences of this decision and offer insights into why it is a step in the wrong direction.
One of the main concerns raised by the scholars is that this decision will have a chilling effect on universities’ efforts to promote diversity on campus. With the threat of legal action looming, universities may be hesitant to consider race as a factor in admissions, leading to a less diverse student body. This, in turn, could have a negative impact on the educational experience of students from underrepresented backgrounds and hinder their chances of success.
Furthermore, the scholars argue that this decision goes against the Supreme Court’s rulings on affirmative action. In the landmark case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Court upheld the use of race as a factor in admissions, stating that it is necessary to achieve diversity on campus. The rescission of the DEI guidance is a direct contradiction of this ruling and could potentially lead to legal challenges against universities that continue to consider race in admissions.
The letter also raises concerns about the Department of Education’s commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion. As Pell and Harpalani note, this decision is part of a larger pattern of attacks on DEI efforts by the Trump administration. From rolling back Obama-era diversity training programs to banning critical race theory, the administration has consistently undermined efforts to address systemic racism and promote inclusivity.
The scholars also highlight the potential impact of this decision on future generations. By limiting diversity and inclusion efforts in higher education, the administration is denying students the opportunity to learn and grow in a diverse and inclusive environment. This could have long-term consequences for society as a whole, as these students will eventually become leaders and decision-makers.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the DEI guidance is a major setback for diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in higher education. It not only goes against the Supreme Court’s rulings but also undermines the Department of Education’s commitment to promoting diversity. As legal scholars, Pell and Harpalani urge universities to continue their efforts to promote diversity and inclusion on campus, despite the challenges posed by this decision. It is only through these efforts that we can create a more equitable and inclusive society for all.
