January 1, 1970

How DEI Policies Are Evolving in Higher Ed 2026

University administrative building exterior with stone columns and official signage

On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education formally dropped its appeal of a federal court ruling that permanently invalidated its February 2025 "Dear Colleague" letter — the directive that had told universities to dismantle race-conscious programming or lose federal funding. DEI advocates celebrated. At most campuses, almost nothing changed.

Institutions that had spent 2025 shuttering diversity offices, scrubbing DEI language from websites, and eliminating programs largely stayed the course. The chilling effect had already done its work before the courts ever acted.

How We Got Here: A 14-Month Sequence

The current landscape didn't appear from nowhere. It traces back to two overlapping pressures: the Supreme Court's June 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions, and the Trump administration's aggressive use of federal funding threats to push further.

On January 21, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." Three weeks later, the Department of Education sent its "Dear Colleague" letter, claiming a wide range of DEI programs could violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Courts blocked it. By August 2025, federal district court judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland had permanently invalidated the directive, finding the government had "unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems."

Then January 22, 2026: the administration dropped its appeal. But on February 6, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a separate preliminary injunction that had blocked portions of Trump's executive orders — meaning universities are still required to certify compliance with federal anti-discrimination rules as interpreted by the DOJ.

The flagship threat died in court. The enforcement machinery didn't.

Date	Event	Campus Effect
June 2023	Supreme Court bans race-conscious admissions	Admissions overhauls begin
Jan 21, 2025	Trump EO on "Ending Illegal Discrimination"	Pre-emptive DEI cuts accelerate
Feb 14, 2025	"Dear Colleague" letter from Dept. of Education	Mass office closures, language scrubbing
Aug 2025	Federal court permanently invalidates letter	Limited reversals
Jan 22, 2026	Trump drops appeal	Almost no universities reverse course
Feb 6, 2026	Fourth Circuit allows executive order enforcement	Compliance certifications still required

Why Universities Aren't Bouncing Back

Here's the part that surprises people. The administration lost in court. Universities didn't win back what they gave away.

The fear is still operational. "There's a lot of fear, and I don't see [DEI] coming back immediately," said an Ivy League administrator quoted by Prism Reports. The University of Alaska Board of Regents voted to maintain its anti-DEI policies despite the court victory, with a spokesperson stating "the direction of enforcement and potential risk has not gone away." The University of Virginia told its student newspaper the same thing: the changes would remain.

Art Coleman of EdCounsel LLC captured the institutional logic plainly: "We've got to get used to recognizing the threat calculus posed by the Trump administration."

Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward offered the sharper read: "For Trump, the confusion is the point."

Universities in states with anti-DEI legislation have no legal path back regardless of federal court outcomes. For them, the New Hampshire court victory is irrelevant. Those state laws don't disappear because a federal directive was struck down.

The State-Level Pressure That Never Left

Federal courts can strike down federal guidance. They cannot erase state statutes.

Since 2023, 28 anti-DEI bills have become law across the country, with the Chronicle of Higher Education's DEI Legislation Tracker showing 149 bills introduced across 30 states and Congress. Six states have emerged as the most aggressive: Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana.

Wyoming banned DEI-related programs, activities, policies, and training outright. Kentucky went further: no DEI offices, no DEI officers, no diversity training, no diversity statements, no race-conscious hiring or admissions preferences. Administrators in Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Indiana, Kansas, and Iowa must file compliance reports directly with state officials.

The practical consequences for faculty are now measurable:

Inside Higher Ed's April 2026 survey found 1 in 10 faculty members at institutions in states restricting academic speech are actively job-hunting out of state
The effect is most concentrated among faculty of color and those in interdisciplinary fields
The University of Alaska and multiple Texas institutions have had documented difficulty retaining diversity-focused researchers

Blue states have largely held their ground. But even California wasn't immune. The California State University system quietly dropped "diversity" from event names while keeping programs intact — Sacramento State's "Presidential Diversity Celebration Series" became something blander. Substance stayed. The branding shifted.

What's Actually Changed on Campus

The on-the-ground reality varies by institution, which makes the picture genuinely hard to read.

American University renamed its Center for Diversity and Inclusion to the Center for Student Belonging in May 2025. University officials denied any connection to Trump's executive orders. The school still lost over $3 million in STEM research grants over perceived DEI language in grant applications. Whatever you call the office, that number reflects what the pressure actually costs.

Emporia State University in Kansas dissolved its entire Division of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion by June 30, 2025, after Kansas Senate Bill 125 required state agencies to eliminate DEI positions. Its newly opened Intercultural Center closed having been operational for less than a year. Programs were redistributed across departments.

Then there's Oberlin College, which held firm. Its Center for DEI Innovation and Leadership remains active. Identity-themed housing persists. The college launched its Changemakers Fellowship with a racial equity focus in 2025. The contrast between Emporia State and Oberlin isn't really about values — it's about whether your state passed a law.

Institution	Action	Trigger
American University	Renamed DEI center; lost $3M+ in grants	Pre-emptive federal pressure
Emporia State	Dissolved entire DEI division	Kansas SB 125
Oberlin College	Maintained all programs	No state law; institutional choice
University of Virginia	Kept anti-DEI changes post-ruling	Institutional chilling effect
University of Denver	Removed all LGBTQ items from Pride Lounge	Federal pressure
31 unnamed colleges	Severed ties with DEI nonprofit	Negotiated federal agreements (Feb 2026)

Who's Bearing the Cost

The policy shifts aren't abstract. Black, Latino, and Indigenous students are losing access to specific resources built precisely because those communities have been chronically underserved by higher education systems.

The New School cut its Chinese, Hispanic, and Japanese Studies minors alongside other cultural programs (this at an institution where Black students have a 67% four-year retention rate and Latino students 74%, compared to the university average of 82%). Three student protests followed. The university student senate called the restructuring a threat to the institution's "progressive legacy and integrity."

Civil rights investigations into race-based scholarships at Stanford University and Indiana University continue regardless of the Dear Colleague letter's fate. Those investigations use different legal theories and a different enforcement mechanism entirely.

"The evidence is clear: diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies expand access and help close opportunity gaps." — Christopher Nellum, EdTrust-West

Royel Johnson at USC's Race and Equity Center added what advocates don't want to admit: "The damage has already been done across the nation and even in California."

The Linguistic Pivot and Its Limits

Some institutions are running a quiet middle path: keep the programs, change the language.

This approach involves renaming offices, scrubbing terminology from grant applications and websites, and avoiding federal scrutiny while preserving core services. California's institutional strategy is the clearest example — maintain program substance, minimize surface area for political attack.

The risks are real on both sides. Critics on the left argue it legitimizes the political pressure without protecting students of color. Critics on the right argue it's cosmetic compliance. Both critiques have merit.

The approach that data actually supports is what schools like Oberlin are doing: maintain programs, document outcomes, and build a defensible record of impact. When you can show retention rates, graduation data, and scholarship outcomes, you have something concrete to argue for — not just a diversity statement.

My read on this: universities that quietly dismantled DEI infrastructure without being legally required to do so made a bet that compliance would protect them. That bet is looking increasingly bad. Faculty are leaving. Student retention gaps aren't narrowing. The legal environment is more uncertain now than it was 18 months ago, not less.

Bottom Line

The Dear Colleague letter is gone, but the administration's remaining toolkit — civil rights investigations at schools like Stanford and Indiana, grant-condition requirements, and Fourth Circuit-backed executive order enforcement — is still fully active. One legal loss did not mean a policy retreat.
State laws are the more durable constraint for most campuses. No federal court decision fixes Wyoming or Kentucky. Administrators in those states should focus on preserving program function within legal constraints rather than waiting for political conditions to shift.
The chilling effect is working as intended. Universities that over-complied in 2025 now carry institutional changes that will take years to reverse — if ever. For students at affected institutions, research actual current programs rather than relying on institutional marketing language.
If you're an administrator trying to protect DEI work: document outcomes obsessively. A mentorship program that raises four-year graduation rates has a stronger defense than any diversity mission statement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is affirmative action still banned at all universities?

Yes. The Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard banned race-conscious admissions at all U.S. colleges and universities — both public and private. This remains in effect regardless of subsequent DEI policy changes at the federal level.

If the Dear Colleague letter was struck down, why are universities still cutting DEI programs?

Several independent forces are still in play. State laws in approximately 28 states operate outside federal guidance and can't be undone by a federal court ruling. Many institutions over-complied in 2025 and now face institutional inertia. And the administration's other enforcement tools — grant conditions, civil rights investigations, compliance certification requirements — never depended on the Dear Colleague letter surviving.

What can universities legally still do to support diversity in 2026?

More than many realize. Race-neutral pipeline programs, first-generation student support, need-based financial aid, mentorship open to all students, and research on systemic inequality are all legally defensible. Explicit race-conscious scholarship criteria and admissions preferences are off the table. The legal status of race-specific affinity spaces and student organizations remains actively contested.

Are any institutions actually holding the line on DEI?

Yes. Oberlin College has maintained its programs. Several California and New York institutions have held commitments despite federal pressure. Private institutions with smaller federal grant dependency generally have more room to maneuver — and some are using it deliberately.

Is the faculty brain drain from anti-DEI states real?

The data says yes. Inside Higher Ed's April 2026 survey found 1 in 10 faculty at institutions in states restricting academic speech are actively job-searching out of state. The effect is concentrated among faculty of color and those in fields that overlap with identity-focused research.

What should prospective students do if DEI resources matter to them?

Ask specific, direct questions before enrolling. Find out whether cultural resource centers are currently operational, whether identity-specific scholarships still exist, and what the current status of relevant student support programs is. Don't rely on admissions brochures — they often reflect aspirational language rather than current reality. Retention rates broken down by race and income are usually the most honest signal of how well an institution actually serves underrepresented students.