Diversity and Equity

A key Texas lawmaker is upping the pressure on state higher education leaders to ensure they comply with a new law eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programming.

The state last year passed a law banning DEI efforts at its public colleges. The legislation, known as SB 17, took effect Jan. 1 and is one of the country's most restrictive anti-DEI laws affecting higher ed.

State Sen. Brandon Creighton, a Republican who sponsored the legislation, recently directed the leaders of seven Texas university systems to detail their compliance with the law by May 3. The Senate’s education committee, which Creighton chairs, plans to hold a hearing on the matter next month.

Lawmakers in Texas, along with those in Florida, have led the charge against DEI in higher education. Both Republican-controlled states have governors who vocally oppose DEI.

Under Texas' ban, public colleges are prohibited from creating diversity offices, hiring DEI employees, or requiring DEI training for students or employees.

In a series of letters in March, Creighton addressed the chief executives and trustees of seven systems: The University of North Texas, Texas Woman's University, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas, the University of Houston, Texas Tech University and Texas State University.

"As regents, enforcement of SB 17 falls as much upon your shoulders as it does this committee," he wrote on March 26. 

Those officials must now report to legislators what they are doing to prevent DEI programming from continuing in any form. Creighton requested information such as how college leaders are preparing for state audits required by the new law ​​and how they are ensuring no employees are doing any DEI work.

The law has led colleges to dismantle their DEI offices. In anticipation of the ban, the University of North Texas said in August it would shutter its Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access Office. And the University of Texas at Austin closed its Multicultural Engagement Center on Jan. 1 when the law took effect. 

But Accuracy in Media, a conservative news organization, has accused some university officials of attempting to work around the law. 

Any effort to circumvent the ban — including by renaming DEI offices and jobs without changing their functions — will not be tolerated, according to Creighton.

"This letter should serve as notice that this practice is unacceptable — and also a reminder that SB 17 encompasses stringent enforcement provisions, including the potential freezing of university funding and legal ramifications for non-compliance," he wrote to college leaders.

Under SB 17, if students and employees are required to take DEI training, they may take legal action against their institution.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a law on March 19 that bans public colleges from funding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, continuing a nationwide push by conservatives to remove such programs from higher education.

The legislation also banned Alabama public colleges and K-12 schools, as well as state agencies, from requiring students or employees to take trainings, orientations or coursework that promote “divisive concepts." 

The bill’s list of divisive concepts includes the ideas that a person of any race, sex or religion is inherently privileged or that anyone should acknowledge a sense of complicity based on those traits. The measure took effect Oct. 1.

The Alabama DEI bill resembles language found in laws passed in Florida and Texas, as well as legislation being considered in Kentucky and Ohio.

But Alabama's proposal went even further, said PEN America, a free expression advocacy group.

"The result would be a campus environment devoid of intellectual freedom, and a state law so draconian that it gives Florida a run for its money," the organization said in February after the measure's introduction.

The bill, SB 129, won't prevent student or employee organizations from hosting DEI events as long as state funds are not used. But prior to the governor's signature, PEN America said the legislation would still stymie programming for students.

"The bill would prohibit DEI offices and programming that determines participation based on identity group, which could include info sessions for international students or university recognition of the Black Student Union," PEN America said. "And should public universities attempt to get around the severe measures in this bill by using federal or private funding, they will find themselves stymied by a clause prohibiting them from procuring any money to fund such activities."

Public colleges will still be allowed to divide housing, athletic and social opportunities by sex under the new law. But they will be prohibited from letting people use a restroom that differs from their sex as assigned at birth.

The legislation will not supersede federal laws or accreditation standards. It also does not alter any previously established state law that may require Alabama boards and commissions to be inclusive and reflective of the state's diversity. 

Since the bill's introduction in February, students and free speech advocates have pushed back on its contents.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama said the legislation uses wide-ranging, vague language and is intended to chill campus discourse.

"This is not only a form of classroom censorship, it’s an anti-truth bill which curtails an education on systemic inequities, racial violence, and the historic efforts to gain civil rights and civil liberties for marginalized communities throughout our nation’s history," the organization said.

In a systemwide email Tuesday, the chancellor of the University of Alabama System and the presidents of its universities said they remain dedicated to ensuring their campuses remain welcoming environments and foster academic freedom and free expression.

"In the coming months, University leadership and legal counsel will assess the final language of the legislation to determine what actions are needed to ensure we can continue to fulfill our multifaceted missions in compliance with applicable state and federal law," they wrote to faculty, staff and students. 

The bill allows for several exceptions to the ban, including for research, academic freedom and accreditation standards, they said.

In 2022, the state's public four-year colleges reported spending just over $16 million on DEI training, staffing and programming, according to AL.com. It is not yet clear if the legislation's passage will result in employee layoffs.

Sponsored content

By ezCater

Today’s student body includes people from different cultural backgrounds, as well as those with allergies and dietary restrictions, so providing safe, nutritious foods on campus that can accommodate cultural and dietary needs goes a long way toward helping students feel safe (and well-fed!) while at school.

Luckily, planning inclusive and equitable campus dining services is completely achievable, if you have the right catering partners, and plan ahead to ensure you’re offering as many options as possible to satisfy your entire student body.

Seven steps toward more inclusive on-campus dining

Providing inclusive and diverse food options on campus is easy with these actionable steps.

1. Educate yourself on food allergies

Approximately 10% of adults in the U.S. have common food allergies that can cause an itchy mouth, hives, difficulty breathing and even life-threatening anaphylactic shock. And although gluten isn’t a life-threatening allergen, students with celiac disease need to stick with gluten-free foods or they could get sick. Take the time to learn about dishes that are safe for everyone to eat.

2. Keep in mind other dietary requirements

Allergies aren’t the only reason students might eat a special diet. Catering for special dietary requirements that stem from moral or cultural preferences is important to help everyone feel included. For example,vegetarian or vegan students need to avoid meat products, while kosher or halal students can only eat foods prepared in a certain way.

3. Conduct a survey on campus

If you don’t already know how many students require allergen-free and dietary restriction-friendly foods, now is a good time to find out. Send out a mass email with a link to a survey. Allow students to check off their allergies and restrictions from a compiled list, but include a field for “other” where students can go into detail.

4. Use a meal catering service

Don’t have the infrastructure to accommodate so many different requests? That’s not a problem: leave the catering to the pros. Search for caterers and restaurants that understand food allergies, sensitivities and dietary restrictions. Look at their menus online to see if they offer multiple food options.

ezCater makes the ordering process a breeze thanks to a smart filter option. For example, you can choose to only see vegan options if you’re serving a crowd of plant-based students. And with over 100,000 partnered restaurants nationwide, there are plenty of options to choose from.

5. Consider a buffet setup

Buffets are great for serving large amounts of people. Set up stations with different foods students can choose from freely. Label everything clearly with a breakdown of ingredients to accommodate students with allergies and dietary restrictions.

6. Offer individualized food options

Alternatively, you could offer individually packaged meals to students with allergies and dietary restrictions. This eases any concerns over cross-contamination (for example, from serving spoons that accidentally get switched around in a buffet line).

7. Ask for feedback on campus dining services

At the end of the day, the goal of serving diverse food on campus is to make students happy. Asking them for feedback lets you know if you’re on the right track. Send out a mass email monthly or quarterly prompting input about the campus food service. You might even get some easy-to-implement creative ideas.

Simplify diverse food ordering for your college campus

Cultural diversity in food on campus is doable. And when you trust an experienced partner like ezCater, promoting inclusivity and equity becomes much easier. Let us do the hard work so you can focus on creating the best experience for students.

Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce took aim at colleges’ diversity, equity and inclusion practices during a two-hour hearing on March 7.

Republicans focused much of their attention on diversity in medical education, antisemitism, and the budgets and staffing of DEI offices at colleges. 

The hearing could give insight to Republicans’ legislative priorities. Republicans control the committee, which oversees federal higher education initiatives and influences legislation affecting colleges. 

Medical education was a popular topic among Republicans at the hearing. That’s likely due in part to the testimony of Stanley Goldfarb, a former associate dean at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. 

Goldfarb — who founded Do No Harm, an organization which seeks to roll back DEI initiatives in medical education — has attracted criticism for his views. One op-ed in the medical news publication STAT accused him of trying to advance a “racist narrative.”

“Your future doctors are learning about divisive politics at the expense of lifesaving care,” he said in his opening remarks. “They’re being taught to discriminate by race and not treat patients equally.”

Goldfarb argued that spending classroom time on issues of policing, climate change and intersectionality is depriving future doctors of education on the fundamentals of medicine and care. 

He claimed medical schools are making faculty sign “DEI loyalty oaths,” advocating for segregated medical care and endangering patients by lowering admissions standards for underrepresented applicants. 

“There’s an ideology that says if I’m a Native American, I’d rather have a doctor that maybe got 30 or 40 points lower on the MCAT [Medical College Admission Test] but who is a Native American, rather than an Asian doctor who did superior on the MCATs,” said Rep. Glenn Grothman, a Republican from Wisconsin. “You have to be really a sicko to think that’s what we should operate our medical system on.”

The Association of American Medical Colleges and other educational organizations have instead said that future doctors need to be aware of the public health issues affecting their patients, as well as be able to address disparate health outcomes for different groups. 

Research has suggested that sharing a racial identity with one’s doctor can lead to better communication. In one study, the prevalence of Black doctors in a health system was linked to an increase in life expectancy among Black medical patients. 

Republicans on the committee also focused on the funding and staffing of public colleges' DEI initiatives. Rep. Burgess Owens, chair of the Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee, used his opening remarks to call out several public universities for their multi-million dollar DEI budgets. 

“And what is the result?” he asked. “More hatred, more anger and more racism.”

Rep. Bob Good, a Republican from Virginia, blasted his own state’s public flagship for its spending on diversity, equity and inclusion. 

“The DEI jobs on college campuses are not low-paying jobs are they? In fact, at the University of Virginia in my district, the vice president of DEI and community partnerships makes $340,000,” Good said. “It’s double the average of a college professor. Is there any way you could justify that?”

A spokesperson for the University of Virginia said its commitment to DEI is meant to help its students learn from a wide range of people and perspectives.

“To achieve that, we welcome students, faculty, and staff who reflect the rich diversity of the Commonwealth we serve, we focus intently on teaching students to bridge differences in ideology, life experience, and other perspectives, and we strive to offer a wide range of points of view in the classroom and in programming around Grounds,” the spokesperson said via email.

Several members of the committee, including Democrats, used their time to talk about antisemitism, with multiple arguing that DEI offices and initiatives engender antisemitism on college campuses. 

 “If DEI is the right place to address antisemitism, then those DEI programs have been failing Jewish students,” said Rep. Kathy Manning, a Democrat from North Carolina. 

Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, took that sentiment a step further. 

“The offices of DEI on these college campuses are inherently antisemitic,” she said.

After a previous committee hearing, Stefanik was influential in putting pressure on the presidents of three universities to resign over their handling of antisemitism allegations on their campuses. Two of them, Claudine Gay of Harvard University and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, eventually resigned in the aftermath of the hearing. 

Democrats on the committee were generally more supportive of DEI efforts. Many suggested that diversity on college campuses leads to better learning environments. If there are institutions that have taken DEI in a negative or unreasonable direction, then those should be addressed individually, they said, rather than discarding DEI offices entirely. 

“We need to be careful of talking about DEI like it’s this monolithic structure,” James Murphy, director of career pathways and postsecondary policy at think tank Education Reform Now, testified on March 7. “It isn’t.” 

Higher education has become central to conversations about diversity, debt, hiring and the workforce. This year, colleges can expect a flurry of state bills and executive orders that will address these topics and potentially reshape how the sector does business.

That spans from policies aiming to boost college attainment to calls to restrict diversity, equity and inclusion efforts on college campuses. While some of these moves have traditionally targeted public colleges, political influence in higher education is spreading, and leaders from private institutions now say they are facing similar external pressures.

Below, we're rounding up three state policy trends that colleges will be grappling with in 2024.

Attacks on DEI in higher ed

In 2023, Florida and Texas banned DEI efforts at public colleges entirely. Lawmakers who supported those policies are part of a conservative-led movement that assert DEI programs have grown beyond their original scope and cause division among students and employees.

This year, colleges nationwide can expect to see continued political attacks against their DEI programs.

Utah lawmakers, for instance, recently passed one of the most wide-ranging bans against DEI at public colleges in the country. The bill is now awaiting Republican Gov. Spencer Cox’s signature. 

Meanwhile, the Kentucky Legislature is weighing at least two proposals that would dramatically reshape the state's DEI landscape.

One would ban almost all public college DEI programs and prohibit colleges from having scholarship eligibility based on sex or race.

A second bill would forbid public colleges from promoting so-called “divisive concepts” in mandatory training. Examples of such topics include that anyone of a specific race or sex is inherently privileged or that the state of Kentucky is fundamentally racist or sexist.

The bills each have support from Republican leaders in their respective chambers. If they widely draw support from conservative lawmakers, they stand a good chance of becoming law — the statehouse’s Republicans carry a veto-proof majority over Kentucky's Democratic governor.

Many policies leave wiggle room for DEI required by federal law or accreditation standards. But they often feature broad language that can leave college employees unsure of what they can and can’t do under the law. 

In Oklahoma, for instance, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt ordered public colleges to review all DEI programs and jobs and eliminate those not necessary for accreditation and compliance. Institutions are expected to report back to the Legislature on their findings by May. 

But the three-page executive order left college leaders in the state with radically different interpretations. While Oklahoma State University said it would require no significant changes upon an initial review, the University of Oklahoma said the order was forcing it to cut all of its diversity offices. Civil rights groups pushed back against the University of Oklahoma’s interpretation and urged the institution to preserve its DEI programs. 

Meanwhile, some college leaders have attempted to stay ahead of potential legislative changes. For example, the University of Texas System paused the creation of new DEI policies four months before the state banned such programs entirely.

FAFSA graduation requirements

At least two states — Nebraska and Oklahoma — will begin requiring high school seniors to complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid in the 2024-25 school year.

In total, roughly a dozen states have made the form a graduation requirement, beginning with Louisiana in the 2017-18 school year. Last year, Louisiana’s high school seniors had one of the highest FAFSA completion rates by the end of June, 67.3% compared to a little over half of students nationwide.

Advocates for FAFSA mandates say the requirement helps high school students — even those who don’t intend on going to college — know what financial aid options are available. Research has shown that filling out the form is a strong indicator of whether a student enrolls in postsecondary education.

Already this year, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced she will push for legislation requiring high school seniors to complete the FAFSA or apply for state-administered scholarships through the New York State Dream Act application. 

In Pennsylvania, a similar proposal passed the state Senate and is awaiting a vote in the House. Just over half of the state's 12th graders completed the FAFSA last year by early June.

Leaders from Pennsylvania's public college systems voiced support for the bill last year, with Daniel Greenstein, chancellor of Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education,  saying the state was leaving money on the table. 

Data from the National College Attainment Network backs up that claim. The nonprofit found that the high school students graduating in 2022 missed out on roughly $3.6 billion in Pell Grants because they did not fill out the FAFSA.

The increased attention to the FAFSA comes amid the U.S. Department of Education's release of its simplified version.

The previous version of the FAFSA was infamously difficult to complete, requiring over 100 questions. The new form could take less than 10 minutes and requires students to answer as few as 18 questions, according to the Education Department.

But technical glitches hindered the initial rollout, which came three months later than usual. 

A higher FAFSA completion rate could also change how states spend and distribute local grants, as they often rely on federal financial aid data when doling out those awards, according to research from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.  The new FAFSA is expected to increase the number of students eligible for Pell Grants, and it could strain state budgets if combined with more students filling out the form.

Rollback of degree requirements for state jobs

In 2023, a wave of states rescinded rules requiring government job candidates to have four-year college degrees.

Maryland kicked off the movement the year prior, when then-Gov. Larry Hogan dropped four-year degree requirements from thousands of state jobs. The Republican billed the "first in the nation" move as a way of recruiting qualified candidates who had alternative examples of experience, such as apprenticeships and boot camps. 

The trend has picked up momentum since and is expected to continue in a tight labor market. State leaders often cite the need for a wider talent pool, and some, like Utah's Republican governor, have railed against the prioritization of degrees in the hiring process.

Last year, several states — including Minnesota, Virginia and Pennsylvania — also dropped degree requirements for most state jobs. In total, at least 16 states have dropped degree requirements as of October.

The changes came as Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value of a college degree. The dual influences could steer young people away from higher education as the sector braces for a decline in traditional-age students.

UPDATE: Jan. 31, 2024: Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill into law barring diversity, equity and inclusion trainings and programs on public college campuses, one of the broadest bans in the country.

The law, which takes effect July 1, will replace DEI offices with student "success and support" centers open to everyone, a move Cox praised. 

"I’m grateful to the Legislature for not following the lead of other states that simply eliminated DEI funding with no alternative path for students who may be struggling,” Cox said in a statement. “Instead, this funding will be repurposed to help all Utah students succeed regardless of their background.”

 

Utah House lawmakers approved final changes to a sweeping bill that would effectively eliminate public colleges' diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, one of the last key steps before it heads to Gov. Spencer Cox’s desk.

The legislation would replace campus DEI centers with broader "success and support" centers accessible to all students. Any programs bearing the words "diversity, equity, and inclusion" would be considered discriminatory and prohibited. The bill would implement similar bans throughout the state's K-12 schools.

Following a final signature from the state Senate president, Cox is expected to sign the bill into law. It would take effect July 1.

Utah's proposal is one of the most wide-reaching pieces of anti-DEI legislation in the country, resembling laws passed in Florida and Texas last year that banned DEI efforts at public colleges. All three states have Republican trifectas, with Utah Republicans controlling both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s mansion since 1985.

The bill would ban colleges from requiring staff and student trainings that promote “differential treatment” or that teach certain concepts, such as that individuals are inherently privileged or oppressed based on their personal identity characteristics. The legislation leaves room for federally required DEI programming.

Additionally, hiring managers and admissions officers could not ask about candidates' views on topics like implicit bias, critical race theory, intersectionality and racial privilege.

The state Senate on Jan. 25 amended the bill's language, changes the House approved the next day.  

An amendment approved that week would protect private scholarships, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. The publication said the move appears to shield some tuition waivers for Native American students, though questions remain on the bill's full impact.

State senators also added language protecting an agreement between the University of Utah and the Ute Tribe to continue offering support services to its students and parents.

Utah Republicans fast-tracked the bill, which went from being introduced to passing both chambers in just two weeks.

State legislation opposing DEI often uses broad language that can leave college employees unsure of what will be permitted under the law. 

Still, at least one college already began changing their policies prior to the vote on Jan. 26. Earlier in the month, following pressure from state leaders, the University of Utah said it would eliminate diversity questions and statements from its hiring process.

When choosing how to fill their incoming classes, highly selective colleges have several tools at their disposal. But many of those admissions practices are facing accusations that they perpetuate unequal access to higher education. 

Advocates for low-income students have called for an end to early decision admissions policies, along with practices that favor the children of alumni and donors. Early decision requires students to attend an institution if they are accepted, meaning they must pledge to enroll before seeing their financial aid packages. 

“It’s really a form of affirmative action for well-off students,” said Marcella Bombardieri, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. “You have to be comfortable that you’re going to be able to afford that college.”

Still, few institutions are ending their early decision programs, which enable them to lock down their incoming class and ensure they don’t lose students to other colleges. 

Why early decision is under fire

An analysis of 2021 college applications sent via the Common App found that students from the wealthiest ZIP codes were twice as likely to apply through early decision than all other applicants, according to a 2022 report from Education Reform Now, a progressive think tank. The Common App allows students to submit applications to more than 1,000 member colleges. 

And that choice often has an effect on the likelihood of acceptance. At Brown, for example, only 4% of students who applied by the regular deadline were accepted in 2020, compared to 18% of those who applied through early decision. 

Some colleges fill much of their incoming classes with early decision students. And several have vastly increased that share over the past few years. 

At Bates College, in Maine, officials admitted 60% of the first-year class through early decision in 2015. In 2020, that share rose to 81%. 

Early decision applicants comprised at least half of that year's first-year class at other selective colleges, including Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Middlebury College and Wesleyan University, Education Reform Now found. All of those institutions increased their share from 2015 to 2020. 

Early decision policies, however, affect just a small share of prospective college students in the U.S. 

Across all of higher ed, only about 12% of four-year institutions reported receiving early decision applications in 2020, according to Education Reform Now. Because the policies are most often found at highly selective institutions, and rarely at public universities, the share of students who are affected is also relatively small. 

But education observers say that the choices of highly selective institutions matter because they have outsized influence on the upper echelons of American society. 

“They are training grounds for the elite,” Bombardieri said. 

Why colleges still use early decision

The criticisms haven’t stopped many colleges and universities from using and relying on early decision admissions policies. For administrations, the policies are convenient and offer their institutions a competitive edge. 

First, they increase yield — the number of accepted students who end up enrolling. That makes it easier for enrollment management teams to judge how many students they can expect to matriculate. 

“College applications used to send a very clear signal about where you were willing to go,” said Evan Mandery, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of “Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us.” 

Because applying to colleges was more laborious before digital tools and the Common App, prospective students sent fewer applications, prioritizing institutions they were excited to attend, he said. 

“Colleges are much more eager than they used to be to determine whether people will matriculate, and early decision is their simple way to do that,” he said. 

Second, early decision policies give colleges opportunities to pull in highly qualified students who are likely to also be accepted at other places. Once they are admitted through early decision, colleges don’t need to worry about losing them to other institutions. 

Some students and families also prefer the option to apply early and get the college admissions process over and done with. 

In 2006, Harvard University, Princeton University and the University of Virginia all announced they were ending their early decision programs over equity concerns, only to bring them back years later. 

In 2011, then-Princeton President Shirley Tilghman said the university had hoped other colleges would follow suit, but they largely hadn’t. That led to the Ivy League university missing out on potential applicants, Tilghman said. 

“Institutions that are highly selective will do it to remain competitive,” said Jill Orcutt, global lead at AACRAO Consulting, part of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. “But it does not favor students who have fewer resources or access to information.”

A changing landscape

Higher education experts said they expected to see fewer institutions using early decision policies after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions policies in 2023. Because institutions can no longer accept students with race in mind, experts anticipated that highly selective colleges would make changes to recruit diverse classes.  

However, that decline in early decision has largely not come to pass — at least not yet. Nearly all institutions so far are maintaining their early decision policies, although some have said they are taking time to reconsider it. 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, better known as Virginia Tech, is an exception. 

In July 2023, the university announced that it would end its early decision policy and move up its deadline for early action, which is a nonbinding way for applicants to learn earlier in the admissions cycle whether they have been admitted. Virginia Tech also said it would end legacy admissions, which gives a leg up to applicants related to alumni. 

Ending early decision had little to do with the recent Supreme Court ruling, said Juan Espinoza, associate vice provost of enrollment management and director of undergraduate admissions at Virginia Tech. 

Out of around 47,000 annual applications, only about 3,500 were for early decision, Espinoza said. However, that smaller pool was used to fill about 20% of seats in the incoming class. And the socioeconomic standing of those students was generally much higher than for other applicants, indicating the program was out of reach for most.

“Here is an option that is really only catering to a very small group of our overall applicants,” Espinoza said. “How can we make this more accessible, how can we make it feel more inclusive for all of our students, and how can we streamline this for all of our students from an efficiency standpoint?” 

Having to review early decision applicants — in addition to early action and regular decision — took significant time and resources, Espinoza said. 

He doesn’t anticipate the choice to affect enrollment. Although it is early in the cycle, applications to Virginia Tech were ahead in volume over last year as of early November.  

“Each year we will continue to make these reviews, continue to hear feedback from our students and try our best to make it the best, most equitable process, and fair and transparent process, for our applicants,” Espinoza said.