On Feb. 14, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a Dear Colleague letter addressing concerns about race-conscious policies in education. In the letter, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights for the Department of Education Craig Trainor stated that the department intends to take action against educational institutions that implement policies the department views as discriminatory on the basis of race, color, and national origin.
The letter describes these measures as being ‘justified under the banner of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI),’ stating that in recent years—particularly the past four—educational institutions have prioritized students of non-Caucasian and non-Asian backgrounds, with many of those non-prioritized students coming from disadvantaged circumstances.
This letter is one of the latest of many governmental, institutional, and societal statements reflecting ongoing debates over the function of DEI policies and their intended impact, and so it is the perfect opportunity to lead discussions on what DEI truly is, answer questions regarding DEI in concept and in function, and how it can collectively help the United States as a whole.
One concern with the letter that has been raised by the National Education Association (NEA) and American Civil Liberties (ACLU), among other bodies, is that while it critiques race-conscious policies, it does not clearly define which specific policies are under scrutiny. A lawsuit filed by the NEA and the ACLU assert that the legal restrictions mentioned in the letter are ‘unfounded’ and ‘vague,’ limiting of academic freedom, and an attempted dictation of what educators are allowed to teach and what students are allowed to be exposed to in regard to sensitive racial and historical topics. Even classroom discussions of discrimination as well as race (an integral topic in United States history) are at risk, as feared by multiple NEA-member educators, due to the letter’s interpretive wording.
After conducting a two week survey open to all UW-Green Bay students from February 24th to March 10th and receiving 12 responses, many critical statements on DEI suggest that its ideals result in the prioritization, intentional or not, of historically underrepresented minorities, who are for the most part non-white, non-male, non-straight, disabled, non-American, non-English speaking, impoverished, non-Christian, or any combination of these or other factors.
Responses to the survey that reflect these concerns include:
“DEI [is basically] something to describe individuals who are not Caucasian.”
“It’s a form of anti-white racism that tries to replace white workers… with non-white people even if it means that quality goes down, in order to virtue signal to those who lean left.”
“When I hear it my first thoughts would be unnecessary reparations for groups historically marginalized done by preferring someone of a minority group.”
“Many places end up being exclusive or having someone of a certain color/race/background to meet quotas only.”
While some respondents expressed concerns about DEI policies, they also stated their support for merit-based selection.
“For those who worked hard in school… they wanted to be recognized for that, not for the color of their skin or some other trait that shouldn’t… define them (which is what the goal should be. It’s okay to recognize people’s differences, but they shouldn’t be defined by them). They wanted to be accepted or hired somewhere due to their achievements, not their skin color/something they couldn’t control.”
“I believe that positions should be based off merit and not one’s identity and color of skin.”
“My personal opinion is that it’s unfair to those who… could be more qualified for a position somewhere, but be denied just because a minority applied for the same position. While I think it’s important for everyone to have equal opportunity… I think no matter what, the most qualified person should be picked regardless of race, sexuality, gender, etc.”
Despite their intentions, some DEI supporters view opposition as prejudicial against the groups DEI aims to support. This can reinforce divisions DEI actively seeks to dismantle, since if certain groups of people are referred to as being the ‘diverse’ group, then those not in one of those groups – in this case many of the categories seen above, such as Caucasian individuals, straight individuals, men, etc – automatically become the default, making it necessary to establish such measures in the first place.
Professor Jon Shelton is the Chair of Democracy and Justice Studies at UW-Green Bay, served as Vice Chair of Green Bay’s first ever Equal Rights Commission, and has been published in the Washington Post and the Cornell University Press, among other venues. When asked how he would define diversity, equity, and inclusion in an interview, Professor Shelton explained that “(DEI) is… a body of thought that says that, as our society becomes more diverse, we need to take proactive steps to make sure that everybody, no matter what their background, is included and set up for success.” He added that at a university level, this means ensuring student success and meeting all students’ needs. This includes his raising critical points, such as “can you really have a university that’s fully inclusive when students still have to pay tuition?”
Addressing common misconceptions about DEI, Professor Shelton explained that what some critics label as misunderstandings of the concept in theory are in fact “bad faith” representation catalyzed by opponents of these initiatives, who falsely suggest that DEI resources discriminate against perceived majority populations, possibly to cause division and sow chaos. There’s even the occasional use of the concept of DEI as a scapegoat, something its opponents can blame for problems that, if they want to receive support from certain voting demographics, they need to solve; individuals who, in Professor Shelton’s words, “feel like this economy has let them down in particular, and are more susceptible to accepting these narratives… the politicians who are pushing this from a place of bad faith, and ordinary working people who may have a misapprehension of what it actually is like.”
In reality, these initiatives are not exclusionary and do not at all risk reverse discrimination. On this idea, Professor Shelton clarified that DEI is not a monolithic concept. He argued that a truly successful DEI program would be expansive enough to include, for instance, tuition-free college education. He cautioned against narrow interpretations that claim a few token measures, saying “if you have a version of DEI that just says, ‘Well, you know… (if we just have) a few more African American billionaires… then we’ll have achieved racial equality… I don’t think that’s particularly helpful.” Instead, he stressed that DEI should adopt a broad approach—one that strives to create a society which is multiracial, gender-equitable, queer-inclusive, and welcoming to everyone.
When it comes to DEI measures in the future of higher education, Professor Shelton gave what is quite possibly the best answer – there’s no telling. “I think they’re deeply under threat. I think I don’t know what the future is going to bring… I can’t tell you what’s going to happen, but I can tell you what I hope will happen, which is that… we will collectively say no to these efforts to take away resources from our students and ultimately protect them.”
Finally, there are many programs here at UW-Green Bay that were created under the ideals of DEI. All of these are pulled directly from the UW-Green Bay website and thus, link addresses will be included in the text.
One of the first resources listed online is UWGB’s Civility & Inclusivity Statement, which essentially sets up the university’s stance on DEI in concept. There are statements on discrimination of any kind as well as academic freedom and links to various resources that can used to report different incidents such as hate crimes, complaints and grievances, and even campus police.
There is also page dedicated to resources for a variety of demographics. Under student resources there are options for academic support, counseling and health, inclusivity, accessibility, housing, and off campus support, all of which are also available under the main resources page. Employee resources include a link to joining an ERG (employee resource group) and an affirmative action statement – which reads that UWGB is an “employer committed to equal opportunity to all individuals regardless of… any category protected by law” – links to information about the employee assistance program and employee disability accommodations, and even more resources. There are even ally resources dedicated to educating people on “different perspectives, histories and individual truths.”
There’s a page dedicated to UW-Green Bay’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Plan of Action, which features links to the UW-Green Bay climate study, Equity Scorecard, Bias Incident Report, a ‘Send a Message’ for the UW-Green Bay Council for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, and the full personal statement from Chancellor Michael Alexander on the university’s Commitment to Do Better.
On the original page there are links to information about Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Certificates, the Campus Cupboard, Events for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, The Center for the Advancement of Teaching & Learning for instructors, and the UW-Green Bay Land Acknowledgement.
All of these are on the UW-Green Bay website and categorized under DEI, thus potentially at risk if the Department of Education’s pursuit of the abolishment of discriminatory practices it perceives as unsuccessfully justified under the banner of DEI is to become more broad in scope and more severe in retaliation. The issue with any potential attacks on DEI is that there are no programs that are DEI and those that are not; as Professor Shelton said, DEI is a body of thought, and there are programs and resources that are put in place with the same merits and ideologies in mind as are carried by that body of thought, whether or not they are consciously created to be ‘DEI.’ Because of this, categorization as diversity, equity, and inclusion is enough for these programs and resources to receive backlash. In this sense, ambiguity is a tool for DEI opponents. DEI programs provide outstanding resources for those who seek support, yet non-participation does not inherently disadvantage anyone. In fact, these initiatives are designed with the principle of universal benefit in mind, ensuring that opportunities for growth, development, and inclusive engagement are accessible to everyone.
Works Cited
Editors, Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Affirmative Action.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc., 19 Mar. 2025, www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action.
Ingram, David. “How Right-Wing Influencers Turned Airplanes and Airports into Culture War Battlegrounds.” NBCNews.Com, NBCUniversal News Group, 29 Jan. 2024, www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/airline-airport-united-delta-dei-migration-spirit-rcna135098.
Kratz, Julie. “The Little Known History Of DEI And Why It’s Critical To Its Survival.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 29 Dec. 2024, www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/12/29/history-of-dei-why-it-matters-for-the-future/.
Schlappig, Ben. “Airline Pilots & Dei: A Reality Check, as Unbiased as Possible.” One Mile at a Time, One Mile at a Time, 19 Feb. 2025, onemileatatime.com/insights/airline-pilots-dei/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJIatFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUEQQSGnvU2SSwSSICgVXKe-87rzYa_R2UoWnUQX_9JbN7jnvrH8zEPSQw_aem_sUg8I7CtfqUZwRSkv5sgqg.
Strauss, Jacob R. “‘Dear Colleague’ Letters: Current Practices.” Congress.Gov, Congressional Research Service, 10 May 2011, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34636.
Trainor, Craig. February 14, 2025, U.S. Department of Education, 14 Feb. 2025, drive.google.com/file/d/1srfP9EoNCOuP3yAyb2ckFTh9uBaLI2ld/view.
Zekeria, Tesnim. “Loose Bolts Open Door to Racism.” Popular Information, Popular Information, 18 Jan. 2024, popular.info/p/loose-bolts-open-door-to-racism.