The United States’ relationship with diversity, equity, and inclusion is not anomalous but rather as American as discrimination itself. Since Donald Trump’s second term began in 2025, DEI has become a premier political target of his administration—matching past eras in principle and exceeding them in aggression. However, Trump is not the first to attack diversity or inclusion, nor is this the first time America has grappled with reconciliation—or the lack of it—in its pursuit of equality.
As Jim Crow parasitically fed on the racial segregation that took root in the 19th century following the gradual end of slavery and a new era of whitelash, Congress attempted to stabilize the country and economy after the loss of free labor. The United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands was one such initiative, created to help formerly enslaved people with jobs, housing, healthcare, clothing, and other necessities—though those formerly enslaved were not the sole beneficiaries.
The Freedman’s Bureau was eventually shut down in 1872, just seven years after its creation, with the help of President Andrew Johnson, following mounting pressure from white Southerners and their belief that the Bureau discriminated against white people—despite evidence that whites also benefited from its services. Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Movement, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson all aimed to make the United States more equitable by banning employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
While these were important improvements, they weren’t impenetrable. Decades later, more attacks on inclusivity would follow—particularly targeting affirmative action policies that originated in the Civil Rights Act. These were challenged multiple times before being formally struck down in the summer of 2023 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC. Like the arguments that led to the dismantling of the Freedmen’s Bureau, this ruling claimed that race-based considerations in admissions—even when approached holistically—were themselves racially discriminatory.
While affirmative action benefits minority groups who might otherwise not be admitted into Ivy League or other majority-white institutions of prestige, a common misconception is that it served the sole benefit of Black Americans. In reality, its broader purpose was to diversify both colleges and workplaces and to prevent discriminatory admissions practices. Affirmative action benefited all students and employees, regardless of race, religion, sex, gender, or disability. It created better pathways for underrepresented ethnic groups as well as women—with white women being in the highest percentile.
Schools and universities have become a central battleground for the Trump administration’s assault on DEI. From campaign promises to eliminate the Department of Education, to pledges to end “racial indoctrination” in K–12 schools and erase Black history from curricula, Executive Order 14151 “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Programs”—seeks to dismantle DEI practices and roll back LGBTQ+ protections. To avoid retaliation or the freezing of federal funds, many schools across the country have complied.
In Virginia, school districts were warned that if they did not cease DEI initiatives, they could lose state and federal funding. The Virginia Community College System passed a resolution effectively ending its DEI programs, followed by Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the University of Virginia. Most recently, George Mason, Old Dominion, James Madison, and Christopher Newport University made changes removing DEI references and resources to comply with the executive order—moves praised by Governor Glenn Youngkin.
However, several institutions have resisted the administration’s pressure to eliminate diversity and inclusion programs that benefit not only marginalized students but entire campus communities. Radford University and Longwood University have continued their DEI efforts. Most notably, Harvard University publicly rejected the administration’s demands.
In a letter to faculty, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote, “No government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Former President Barack Obama praised Harvard’s stance, saying, “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions—rejecting an unlawful and harmful attempt to stifle academic freedom while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.”
In response, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard. The university filed a lawsuit and co-signed a letter with more than 150 college and university presidents condemning the administration’s actions.
Meanwhile, in Maryland, a federal judge recently blocked Trump’s ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices outlined in the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter—effectively halting the administration’s effort to cut funding and programs, at least for now.
If history has any credibility, the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion cannot credibly be based on restoring values like individual dignity, hard work, or excellence, as the Trump administration suggests. Instead, it will likely lead to a series of legal battles—many of which are already underway.
To the privileged, equity and equality may feel oppressive—but that doesn’t make them so. It just means privilege is finally being checked. Initiatives like DEI and affirmative action move America forward by serving the diverse communities that make up this nation. Even some of DEI’s most vocal opponents have benefited from inclusive policies, whether they realize it or not.
But American history is filled with moments where backlash to progress stifles reform—especially when social services are perceived as being “coded for Blackness.” This perception often triggers misguided opposition. Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders are part of that same familiar cycle—a regression to a past we seem unable to let go of, even when it works against our own collective future.
Main image from 2020 protests in downtown Richmond by R. Anthony Harris
Support RVA Magazine. Support independent media in Richmond.
In a world where corporations and wealthy individuals now shape much of our media landscape, RVA Magazine remains fiercely independent, amplifying the voices of Richmond’s artists, musicians, and community. Since 2005, we’ve been dedicated to authentic, grassroots storytelling that highlights the people and culture shaping our city.
But we can’t do this without you. A small donation, even as little as $2 – one-time or recurring – helps us continue to produce honest, local coverage free from outside interference. Every dollar makes a difference. Your support keeps us going and keeps RVA’s creative spirit alive. Thank you for standing with independent media. DONATE HERE.
Also, you can show your support by purchasing our merch HERE.
