Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Anti-DEI laws are trying to silence underrepresented voices

Mouton is an assistant professor of English at Huston-Tillotson University. Raval is a documentary filmmaker. Rodriguez is an assistant professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. Schmitt directs the Children’s Language, Literacy, and Learning Lab at UT Austin. Ward is the CEO of 2Ward Equity Consulting. They were public voices fellows with The OpEd Project before UT Austin’s participation in the program was canceled.

The recent attack on Claudine Gay, Harvard University’s first Black female president, is one of many attempts by elements of the right wing to radicalize higher education by censuring diverse voices. Another — the Texas Legislature’s ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in public institutions of higher education — went into effect on Jan. 1.

Senate Bill 17 states that any program or policy that affords “special benefit” to marginalized groups must end. But the law fails to address the systemic barriers and historic discrimination that necessitated development of the DEI programs in the first place. As such, SB-17 is gatekeeping knowledge access and threatening the civil liberties of Texas citizens. It should serve as a warning to other states.


In 2008, 85 percent of experts writing in major U.S. commentary forums were men (as identified by pronouns) and overwhelmingly white and cisgender, even though that demographic only represents 9 percent of the global community. White men, in other words, had an influence in public knowledge disproportionate to their representation in society — or for that matter, in academia.

The Public Voices Fellowship, a national initiative of The OpEd Project, partners with top universities and foundations across the United States to expand the number of underrepresented experts in the media, with the goal of broadening public knowledge and access. For nearly a decade, it helped scholars across the University of Texas at Austin join important national conversations. According to Katie Orenstein, founder and CEO of The OpEd Project, the fellowship is motivated by the belief “that people of all genders, identities, and backgrounds are essential to the story of our future,” and, therefore, SB-17 mandated its cancellation.

Stories that are told publicly affect policies, community conversations, research initiatives, creative works and more. As fellows of the ninth cohort of The Public Voices Fellowship at UT Austin, we have experienced the program’s impact firsthand. Since August, members of our cohort have published pieces on book bans, personalized AI, trauma and learning loss, child sexual trauma, deadly immigration policies, and organ transplant equity, as well as directed a documentary highlighting Asian Black solidarity and intergenerational exchange. We are shocked by the fellowship’s disruption and concerned about how this anti-DEI legislation will impact whose stories are allowed to shape our world.

Certainly we need informed experts from a myriad of backgrounds and experiences to solve the world’s most pressing issues. The problem comes when one group’s experiences are privileged over others. The voices of white, cisgender men have never been silenced. They continue to publish the majority of all op-eds.

In a fully liberated and just society, DEI programs would not be needed. People of all identities would experience equal opportunities to succeed and share their expertise. We do not yet live in that world. Underrepresented experts don’t need DEI programs to bypass determinations of merit but rather to bypass longstanding, discriminatory practices. Because DEI programs threaten the comforts of the most privileged in our society, SB-17 was passed — directly diminishing access for those representing the global majority to create and share knowledge.

SB-17 has already had a profound impact on higher education in Texas. Leaders at the helm of university inclusion efforts have lost their jobs, faculty are leaving the state, and recruitment of faculty is tenuous, threatening the integrity of top-tier research institutions and limiting representation for students. Even though research and teaching are technically protected from the new law, faculty are being asked to strip all evidence of inclusive practices from their websites out of an abundance of caution, casting doubt on whether culturally responsive scholarship is actually protected and threatening the integrity of students’ academic experiences, safety and belonging.

This attack on knowledge access is not confined to Texas. Since the summer of 2023, the Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action, five states have passed legislation ending DEI programs and another 40 bills across 22 states have restricted DEI initiatives at public universities. The eradication of support for anyone other than white, straight, cisgendered males has been reframed as a “ return to merit-based decisions ” — language that obscures a host of advantages that perpetuate centuries of inequity and discrimination.

SB-17 ensures those in power have unhindered opportunities to shape our society’s narrative by eliminating the voices of experts with different lived experiences and serves as a warning to citizens in other states. If we want to live in a just and informed society, then higher education institutions must be allowed to protect and promote the voices of their entire community. Without programs like the Public Voices Fellowship, reactionary extremists will continue to wield their agendas using legislation to silence the global majority and preserve white institutional power.

Anti-DEI legislation is a threat to democracy and must be denounced. Our voices matter now more than ever. We have an opportunity in 2024 to give careful consideration as we choose leaders, to choose whose voices we hear. To quote The OpEd Project, “The stories we tell become the world we live in.”

Read More

Leaders Can Promote Gender Equity Without Deepening Polarization − Here’s How
Getty Images, pixelfit

Leaders Can Promote Gender Equity Without Deepening Polarization − Here’s How

Americans largely agree that women have made significant gains in the workplace over the past two decades. But what about men? While many Americans believe women are thriving, over half believe men’s progress has stalled or even reversed.

To make matters more complex, recent research has revealed a massive divide along gender and partisan lines. The majority of Republican men think full gender equity in America has been achieved, while the majority of Democratic women think there’s still work to be done.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Sabotaging America’s Greatest Demographic Advantage

The U.S. flag, a certification of naturalization, and a U.S. passport.

Getty Images, Thanasis

Trump Is Sabotaging America’s Greatest Demographic Advantage

“A profoundly dangerous and destabilizing thing.” That’s how Vice President J.D. Vance recently described America’s falling birthrate. Recently, the “ inherently pronatalist ” White House is considering a new set of proposals to address it—including government-funded menstrual cycle education and even a national medal for women who bear six or more children. But while Republicans may recognize the problem, their broader agenda actively undermines the most immediate and effective solution to population decline: immigration.

The Trump administration is enacting an all-out assault on immigration. Breaking from decades of Republican rhetoric that championed legal immigration, the current approach targets not just undocumented migration but legal pathways as well.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
Getty Images, wildpixel

The Next Hundred Days: America's Latest Test of Democracy

For decades, we have watched America wrestle with its demons. Sometimes, she has successfully pinned them down. Other times, the demons have slipped beyond her grasp. Yet, America has always remained in the ring. There is no difference right now, and the stakes couldn't be higher.

Across America, from small-town council meetings to state legislatures, there's a coordinated effort to roll back the clock on civil rights, geopolitical relations, and the global economy. It's not subtle, and it's not accidental. The targeting of immigrants and citizens of color has become so normalized that we risk becoming numb to it. For example, what happened in Springfield, Ohio, late last year? When national politicians started pushing rhetoric against Haitian immigrants, it wasn't just local politics at play. It was a test balloon, a preview of talking points soon echoed in halls of government and media outlets nationwide. Thus, this is how discrimination, intolerance, and blatant hate go mainstream or viral—it starts small, tests the waters, and spreads like a virus through our body politic and social system.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of people approaching each other over a chasm, ready to shake hands.

Two groups of people approaching each other over a chasm, ready to shake hands.

Getty Images, timsa

The Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Efforts To Eliminate DEI

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) explaining in practical terms what the new administration’s executive orders and other official actions mean for all of us. Virtually all of these actions spring from the pages of Project 2025, the administration's 900-page blueprint for government action over the next four years. The Project 2025 agenda should concern all of us, as it tracks strategies already implemented in countries such as Hungary to erode democratic norms and adopt authoritarian approaches to governing.

Project 2025’s stated intent to move quickly to “dismantle” the federal government will strip the public of important protections against excessive presidential power and provide big corporations with enormous opportunities to profit by preying on America's households.

Keep ReadingShow less