Now that the legal situation is clear, it is time for the US to rebuild DEI

One year ago, a single federal “Dear Colleague” letter sent shockwaves through American higher education.

Issued on 14 February 2025, the guidance declared diversity, equity and inclusion efforts unlawful and was quickly interpreted by state agencies, governing boards and institutional counsel as a binding directive rather than what it legally was: non-binding guidance without statutory authority.

Fearing the loss of federal funding, thousands of public and private institutions moved swiftly to dismantle student cultural centres, close pride and multicultural spaces, and suspend retention programmes that had long supported students from historically underrepresented backgrounds.

At the end of January, however, the Department of Education abandoned its appeal against an August federal court judgment blocking the enforcement of the directive. The ruling did not merely correct a procedural overreach: it restored a basic legal truth that had been obscured by politics and fear. DEI programmes were never illegal.

Federal agencies do not possess the authority to unilaterally rewrite civil rights law, and nor can they prohibit institutions from providing identity-aware support where such programmes are consistent with long-standing protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and equal protection jurisprudence. What the court affirmed, plainly, is that the law had not changed – only its interpretation had.

For public colleges and universities, the implications of the government’s admission of defeat are immediate and consequential. They may now reinstate student support structures, recruitment initiatives and inclusive programming without fear of federal retaliation. That includes cultural and identity-based centres, mentorship and retention programmes, and initiatives designed to address inequities that remain well documented across American higher education.

Yet while the law now speaks clearly, institutional responses remain uneven. Some states and university systems resisted the rollback from the outset, maintaining DEI functions or preserving them under alternative administrative structures. Others, particularly in states with aggressive legislative restrictions, moved quickly and publicly to dismantle them. In some cases, further litigation is inevitable, but institutional leaders are no longer operating in legal darkness. They do not have to continue enforcing policies born of legal misinterpretation.

Nor would they be wise to do so if they value their financial stability. The decline in international enrolment in 2025 was not only about visa restrictions or geopolitical developments; it was also about trust. At a time when global competition for students is fierce, the US signalled uncertainty about whether difference is welcomed or merely tolerated. International students noticed, and for institutions that rely heavily on their tuition fees, the consequences were immediate: budget shortfalls and programme cuts that extended well beyond DEI offices.

Domestic students took note as well. For many students of colour, as well as LGBTQ+ and first-generation scholars, the DEI rollback was interpreted as an indication that their presence on US campuses, too, was conditional. At several institutions, applications and yield among these populations declined just as support structures were being withdrawn, exacerbating existing retention challenges.

With the court’s ruling now settled, the central question for college leaders is no longer whether DEI efforts can be restored, but how they should be reintroduced in ways that are legally sound, institutionally durable and worthy of renewed trust. That challenge exists alongside an undeniable political reality: even lawful DEI efforts may provoke scrutiny, funding pressure or targeted retaliation from some state governments, as well as the Trump administration itself. Navigating this moment therefore requires not only legal compliance, but strategic restraint, institutional coherence and political acuity.

That work cannot be ducked. DEI cannot be treated as a peripheral initiative or a political liability; it must be articulated as central to academic excellence and institutional mission. But the most effective leaders will ground their initiatives in evidence rather than rhetoric, using data on persistence, graduation rates and student success to demonstrate what decades of research already confirm: inclusive environments improve outcomes for all students.

Rebuilding trust also requires transparency and shared governance. Many institutions lost credibility not simply because programmes were cut but because decisions were made abruptly and without meaningful engagement. Restoring confidence will require sustained dialogue with students, faculty, staff and alumni, alongside clear accountability measures – embedded in governing boards, shared governance structures and public reporting – that make DEI commitments visible, reviewable and difficult to reverse quietly, thereby signalling permanence rather than contingency.

Trustees and policymakers who treated the 2025 guidance as legally binding often did so without a clear understanding of civil rights precedent. Presidents and chancellors therefore have an obligation to educate governing bodies on the actual legal foundations of DEI, ensuring that future guidance is interrogated rather than reflexively adopted. Legal literacy, in this moment, is not optional – it is a leadership responsibility.

Finally, institutions should resist framing DEI as an internal cultural debate alone. These efforts are strongest when aligned with employers seeking globally competent graduates, civic partners invested in democratic participation, and international collaborators who value pluralism. Such coalitions shift the conversation away from ideology and toward outcomes: workforce readiness, research excellence and global competitiveness.

American higher education now has a second chance to reclaim moral and intellectual leadership at a moment when the world is watching closely. But to do so it must not merely return to its previous state. It must do better. Otherwise, the US risks ceding its long-held position as the destination of choice for the world’s most diverse and ambitious students.

James S. Bridgeforth is an independent, nationally syndicated columnist with expertise in higher education leadership and institutional research. He holds a PhD from the University of Southern Mississippi and an MEd from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.