DEI is dead—long live DEI

Since the Jan. 20 executive orders, universities across the country have been quietly shuttering their DEI offices and scrubbing their websites of the familiar language: “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” But for those of us working inside these institutions, it’s clear much of this is just a rebranding effort—not a reversal. The acronyms may be disappearing, but the ideology remains intact. In fact, it's often being enforced with even greater intensity. The real issue at the heart of DEI—racial discrimination in the name of social justice—continues under new labels. Faculty and administrators are still training students to see themselves as activists in a struggle against the white Christian so-called oppressor.

Just last week, Jeremy Carl, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, reported on X that a professor at the University of Michigan had shared an internal email from UM-Flint. The email announced that DEI was being rebranded as the “Hub of Opportunity, Persistence, and Excellence”—a bureaucratic mouthful that conveniently avoids the now-politicized acronym. Importantly, the email made clear there would be no reduction in staffing. In other words, the national headlines claiming that Michigan had ended its DEI program were entirely misleading. The core value being highlighted now is “inclusion”—a word that sounds innocuous, even admirable, to most people outside academia. After all, who could be against inclusion? Shouldn’t a public university include everyone who qualifies?

Student reactions make clear just how deeply the DEI narrative has taken hold. Many cannot even imagine how education could function without it. To them, it’s simply accepted as truth: that white conservative Christian men are the historic oppressors of the world and must be countered—often through explicit, systemic discrimination against them. On the Michigan Today webpage, one self-identified alumnus expressed disappointment that the university was getting rid of DEI, explaining that as a white man, he knows he has implicit bias. He—and countless other graduates—have fully absorbed this ideology and now structure their lives around it.

Closer to my home, at the University of Arizona, students recently protested the university’s new president—not for any policy he enacted, but because the school had quietly removed DEI language from its website. “How can we have education without DEI?” one student asked. The question reveals just how poorly educated many of these students already are. They’ve been taught to believe that education itself is impossible without racial discrimination. The irony is painful: The very people who decry a lack of “inclusion” are actively working—with their professors’ help—to exclude and marginalize anything labeled “whiteness” or “heteronormativity,” simply by naming them as systems of oppression. They believe that “inclusion” means taking from some based entirely on skin color (white) and giving to others deemed more deserving (the marginalized).

And yet, Arizona State University, where I serve as a professor of philosophy, continues to lead the way in entrenching DEI ideology under new labels. Faculty recently received an email from the provost promoting an event called the Future of Learning Community Fest 2025. Among the featured teaching seminars: a session on something called “Design Justice.” Once again, we’re handed a phrase that sounds perfectly positive—who could be against justice in design, after all? But as always, the meaning lies beneath the branding.

A look at the accompanying slides makes it immediately clear that this is no departure from DEI. In fact, “equity” and “inclusion” remain front and center—only the language has evolved. But it’s the definition of “design justice” that really demands attention. According to ASU,

Design justice focuses explicitly on the ways that design reproduces and/or challenges the matrix of domination—white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, settler colonialism, and other forms of structural inequity.

In other words, the university isn’t stepping back from DEI. ASU is doubling down, just under a different name.

This so-called “design justice” isn’t presented as an optional framework. It’s meant to inform all of our classes. On another slide, faculty are told that we must align with ASU’s mission of

decolonization of design education curriculum and pedagogy by advocating inclusive, ethical, and community-driven design practices, ensuring that marginalized voices are at the center of architectural and design solutions.

And just below that, the slides prominently display the familiar values of “equity and inclusion.” In short, the ideological goals of DEI haven’t disappeared—they’ve just been repackaged and embedded more deeply into the curriculum. No alternative conservative philosophy or way of shaping curriculum was promoted by the ASU provost at this event, only “design justice.”

In other words, it’s business as usual. DEI hasn’t ended; it’s just been rearranged and rebranded, with its core ideology—especially its anti-white, anti-Christian worldview—still fully intact. None of this should surprise us. No administrator or faculty member who championed DEI propaganda had a sudden change of heart on Jan. 20. Their careers, their reputations, and in many cases their entire identities are tied to this ideology. And they will continue pushing it—into classrooms, into student programs, into hiring and admissions—while expecting you and your tax dollars to fund it.

The only real question left is this: Will we keep submitting to it quietly, or will we demand that our leaders enforce the law and hold these institutions accountable? The answer will shape the future of American education—and the minds of the next generation.