On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump was inaugurated and has since signed over 70 executive orders, including one titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” This order aims to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government, citing concerns that DEI programs are “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.”
Time Magazine writes that “diversity, equity, and inclusion programs can take many forms, but they generally describe efforts to increase access to and remove barriers from things like higher education and jobs for those from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and genders.” The executive order states that DEI programs are “shameful discrimination” programs.
Since its release, the impact of the order has already spread throughout America, even though it is currently only being applied to the federal government and federally funded organizations. Major corporations such as McDonalds, Target, Walmart, and Amazon have publicly cut back on their DEI programs. The Department of Education (DOE) released a statement titled “U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate DEI,” which reads that the department has taken action to eliminate “harmful DEI initiatives.” By removing DEI initiatives, the DOE writes that this is “the first step in reorienting the agency toward prioritizing meaningful learning ahead of divisive ideology in our schools.”
On Jan. 27, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a memo ceasing all Federal financial assistance for “foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the Green New Deal.” The OMB rescinded this statement, but there remains pressure to reexamine where federal research funds are allocated.
Dr. Janelle Pham, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Oglethorpe University, spoke on the potential consequences executive orders could have for academic research. “I know a biologist who submitted a grant last week and isn’t sure if it’s going to go through,” Pham said, highlighting fears that funding for research projects could be at risk under the current governing body.
Beyond DEI, the administration has also targeted gender-related policies through executive orders. The order titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” provides rigid definitions of sex, gender, male, and female and how the federal government should enforce the implementation of these definitions. According to the White House, the purpose of this order is to “defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.”
“I think it is a way of coming for social science programs and research programs that also fall under the purview of what the administration would consider ‘woke academics,’” said Pham. “I’m thinking about the closure of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies, and women’s centers in some states like Florida.”
The current executive orders mirror past actions. In January 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation restricting public universities and colleges from spending money on DEI initiatives. Later that same year, The New College of Florida eliminated its gender studies program.
Dr. Anna Ziering, an Assistant Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Oglethorpe University, called the quick succession of executive orders a strategy of “shock and overwhelm.”
“It’s a strategy of shutting people down,” Ziering said. “ It’s happening so fast that it's hard to stay on top of things.” Ziering pointed out that the executive orders are already restricting speech and language, health and safety, and jobs involving DEI.
The strategy of shock appears to be working. Businesses are removing their policies and universities are unclear how to act.
When asked about Oglethorpe’s perspective on the executive orders, Vice President of Oglethorpe Marketing and Communications, Lance Wallace, referred to a previous message from President McClymond, which emphasizes the university’s commitment to “an inclusive learning environment” and “civil discourse.”
Oglethorpe’s DEI office was unavailable for comment; however, the website for Oglethorpe’s DEI office is still publicly available. Georgia Tech, another prominent Atlanta university, removed its DEI policies from its university website. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “an email triggered alarm bells at Georgia Tech last week after recipients were told to delete diversity, equity, and inclusion terminology from the school and its affiliated website.”
Some academics argue that silence from universities may indicate “anticipatory obedience,” a term used in an article released by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) titled “Against Anticipatory Obedience.” The article warns institutions against preemptively complying with political shifts without legal pressure. The AAUP writes, "University administrators and faculty members may be compelled to comply with legislation and court orders, even where these run counter to professional and constitutional principles.”
Because public and many private universities depend on federal grants, loans, and research funding, they may feel discouraged to speak out against federal executive orders, even when they threaten the university's mission.
Still, on Feb. 14, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights sent out a memorandum giving universities and K-12 schools a two-week deadline to cease any institutional practices that use “repugnant race-based preferences” in areas like admissions, awarding financial aid, and hiring. Backed by the statement that “educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism,’” the letter offered an ultimatum: comply by the noted 14-day period or face the potential loss of federal funding. This move has already gained criticism.
Structurally, however, there seem to be some limitations to executive actions. Executive orders are written directives from the Office of the President that direct the government to take certain actions and ensure that laws are being executed. Executive orders can not create new laws or go against preexisting laws. Yet, the details on how exactly these executive orders will affect the futures of universities remain unclear.
コメント