From Degrees of Difficulty: The Challenge of Equity in College Teaching by David Trend, now free of charge from Worlding Books
Underlying current opposition to diversity programs lies the pervasive belief that inequity and bias barely exist in a “post-civil rights, post-feminist” era, and that efforts to redress them have gone too far. This mindset helps explain why, as American universities now face a federal ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, a majority of the general public supports eliminating the programs –– with a recent Economist/YouGov poll finding 45% in favor of ending DEI in education over 40% opposed.[1] Already intense in state legislatures and conservative media, this resistance reflects deeply rooted American ideologies about meritocracy and individualism that clash with efforts to address systemic inequalities in higher education. The resulting political struggle has transformed campus diversity initiatives from administrative policies into flashpoints in America’s culture wars.
The controversies over this are no secret. Recent measures to ban or restrict DEI and the teaching of CRT in educational institutions reflect a longstanding political backlash. Leading up to the November election, 85 anti-DEI bills had been introduced in 28 state legislatures, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education‘s “DEI Legislation Tracker.”[2] These often broadly worded laws created confusion and fear among educators, while chilling discussions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability on campuses.
The infamous politicization of these issues in public discourse stems in large part from what scholars identify as the “myth of achieved equality” –– a pervasive belief in American political discourse that the nation has already overcome its historical inequities through past civil rights legislation and social progress.[3] Especially common in conservative political circles, this belief frames DEI programs as unnecessary or even harmful interventions in a now fair system. The ideology of “colorblindness” emerging in the post-Civil Rights era added another dimension to complaints about DEI programs. Politicians and media figures frequently invoke Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society to argue against race-conscious policies in higher education.³ This selective interpretation of civil rights history underlies many legislative efforts to restrict how universities can address disparities in enrollment, retention, and graduation rates. The Supreme Court’s 2023 negation of affirmative action has further emboldened political movements seeking to dismantle university diversity programs.
Gender equity narratives follow a similar pattern in political discourse. Despite persistent gaps in faculty representation and leadership positions, opponents of DEI initiatives point to women’s overall higher college enrollment rates as evidence that gender-based initiatives have become obsolete or discriminatory. This argument resonates with voters who see individual success stories as proof that systematic barriers no longer exist. The political rhetoric often overlooks continuing disparities in STEM fields and senior academic positions, where women remain significantly underrepresented.[4]
DEI resistance acquires added momentum from what social psychologists term “system justification theory” –– the tendency to defend existing social arrangements. In public debates, this manifests as skepticism toward evidence of contemporary systemic bias, with critics often making claims of overcorrection to academic system now fair and meritocratic. This narrative particularly appeals to voters who feel they have experienced reverse discrmination or believe in the American Dream and see DEI initiatives as threatening this cherished ideal.[5] The notion of defending academic standards thus becomes a powerful rhetorical tool, allowing critics to position themselves not as opponents of equality but as guardians of excellence –– a framing that transforms substantive critiques of systemic bias into perceived attacks on institutional quality itself.
Social media has emerged as a powerful amplifier of anti-DEI sentiment, with viral videos and memes often presenting isolated incidents or mischaracterizations of diversity programs. As inflammatory posts get boosted by social media algorithms and spread from platform to platform, they lose their original context and meaning. Through repetition these distorted stories start to seem true simply because people see them everywhere. Reactionary news outlets frequently feature stories about perceived excesses of DEI programs while minimizing coverage of persistent educational disparities. This selective focus shapes public perception and provides ammunition for politicians seeking to restrict diversity initiatives in higher education. The emergence of “anti-woke” legislation targeting higher education reflects a broader political strategy that frames DEI initiatives as elite impositions on ordinary Americans. This framing resonates with deeply held beliefs about individualism and self-reliance, making it particularly effective in mobilizing opposition to university diversity programs. The political discourse often positions DEI initiatives as threats to education itself, despite evidence that diverse academic communities produce better learning outcomes.[6]
The financial dimensions of DEI opposition have also gained prominence in political discourse. Critics often focus on the costs of diversity offices and programs, framing them as unnecessary administrative bloat that drives up tuition costs. Such arguments have found particular resonance during periods of budget constraints and rising concerns about student debt. Addressing this political resistance requires understanding its roots in American cultural narratives about achievement and fairness. While most academic institutions recognize the importance of DEI initiatives, they must increasingly defend themselves in the court of public opinion. This calls for new strategies to communicate how diversity enhances academic excellence rather than compromising it. In higher education, finding ways to build broader political support for inclusion is becoming an essential in the current environment.
[1] The Economist/YouGov Poll, Jan 19 – 21, 2025 – U.S. Adult citizens (Jan. 19-21,2025) https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econtoplines_P1J4BlQ.pdf
[2] Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2023).
[3] Ronald Brownstein, “Post-Racial Republicans,” Atlantic Monthly, Jun. 24, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/nikki-haley-tim-scott-2024-election-racial-inequity/674511/
[4] Patricia Hill Collins, Intersectionality: Key Concepts (London and New York: Polity, 2020).
[5] John Jost and Orsolya Hunyady, “The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology,” European Review of Social Psychology 13, no. 1 (2022): 111-153.
[6] Christopher Rufo, “The DEI Regime,” City Journal , Jul. 13, 2022, https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-dei-regime