Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, Jr., VP of Partnerships and Programming with the Bridge Alliance, is respected for his leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues.
Johnson shares his thoughts and reflections on Indigenous Peoples' Day.
A young student studying at school.
Growing up in New Castle, Pennsylvania, where every public school received extra federal support due to the city’s high poverty levels, I saw the importance of governmental assistance.
New Castle Area School District, one of the poorest in Pennsylvania, relied on Title I to fund essential services like tutoring, after-school programs, smaller class sizes, and specialized instruction. It was also vital in making sure that everyone had a chance to succeed in this country, despite economic disadvantages. The goal was for no child to be left behind.
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESSA), along with other programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that prohibits gender discrimination, have been crucial in the push for educational equality.
In the 2021–2022 school year, around 63% of traditional public schools and 62% of public charter schools were eligible for Title I funding. During the fiscal year 2023, allocation for Title I and other selected programs under the ESSA totaled approximately $33 billion, making federal support indispensable for ensuring that all students have access to the resources and opportunities they deserve, regardless of background.
The recent White House declaration to shut down the U.S. Department of Education, coupled with the executive order banning diversity initiatives, threatens to undo the progress so many Americans have fought to achieve in advancing educational equity.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Of course, the DOE is far from perfect, but it’s still a critical force in ensuring that all students receive a quality education. Dismantling the DOE would be a step toward resegregation, a return to a time when “separate but equal” was the norm and educational opportunities were dictated by race and economic status.
The doctrine of “separate but equal” was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896 through the Plessy v. Ferguson case, which upheld racial segregation in public facilities, including schools. Under this policy, Black students often attended overcrowded schools with outdated materials, underpaid teachers, and limited resources, while white students had access to well-funded, modern schools.
Although the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 declared that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” the effects of racial injustice still linger.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that during the 2020-21 school year, over one-third of students were enrolled in schools where at least 75% of the student body belonged to a single race or ethnicity. Additionally, they noted that newly formed school districts, which seceded from existing ones, typically had higher percentages of white and Asian students than districts they left. Even with legal advancements, separate but equal remains.
As a Black woman educator of teachers in a state university system, I have heard preservice teachers share their concerns about the disparities in funding, facilities, and opportunities in schools that serve predominantly Black and brown students.
During my time as a high school English teacher, I witnessed firsthand how schools were labeled “good” or “bad” based on the percentage of middle-class and affluent white students who attended. As a parent of Black children, I’ve had to make decisions about schools based on the racial and socioeconomic makeup of student bodies because I know that schools serving children who look like mine are often underresourced.
A future without DOE could risk deepening the divide and perpetuate systemic inequities that have long plagued the educational system. It risks regressing to that era of inequality, where educational opportunities depend even more on where you live, what you have (or don’t), and what you look like.
That is because the DOE provides federal funding to schools that need it most—those in low-income and predominantly minority communities. Programs like Title I have been instrumental in ensuring that students in these schools have the resources they need to succeed.
For example, Title I requires states to develop annual performance targets. When schools fail to meet those targets, they receive additional support to foster improvement. It mandates that core academic subjects be taught by state-certified teachers who have demonstrated competency in their field.
It also stipulates that states and districts with higher numbers of marginalized and economically disadvantaged students are not disproportionately taught by teachers who are unqualified, teaching out-of-field, or inexperienced.
Without the DOE, state budgets would fall short in providing adequate funding for schools. School funding largely relies on state tax revenue, which means districts serving poorer students have significantly less money to invest in education.
To be sure, Title I provides funding to offset some of the wealth disparities, but the reality is that, even with additional resources, it’s often not enough to make up for local-level funding gaps. The Economic Policy Institute notes that, “while federal funding, by far the smallest source of revenue, is being deployed as intended (to reduce inequities), it inevitably falls short of compensating for a system grounded in highly inequitable local revenues as its principal source of funding.”
Without the DOE’s intervention, the gap between wealthy and disadvantaged communities would widen, leaving the latter with fewer resources.
The problem isn’t just about “separate,” it’s about unequal—and the DOE ensures that every student, regardless of their background, has access to the same opportunities. Without it, those opportunities would be left up to the whims of individual states and districts, and many of those areas would be free to perpetuate the kinds of inequality that led to the separate but equal system in the first place.
As someone from a town that’s struggled to meet their educational goals, I know that many of the nation’s poorest districts will be hit hardest by the disbanding of this essential institution.
Undoing the DOE would be a huge injustice for students, teachers, and the country as a whole. This country can’t afford to move back 60 years to a history of racial integration resistance and erase all the progress toward justice and fairness in education.
American education must move forward, not backward.
Stephanie R. Toliveris an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
By executive order, the Trump administration has called for an end to “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) schemes.
Growing up, my cultural identity was nurtured by my family but when I stepped beyond the safeguards of home, my experiences as an undergrad and grad student were revealing. My journey was marked by the absence of Latina representation in required texts and academic spaces. Revolutionary figures like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Surgeon General Antonia Coello Novello, writer Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, and others were glaringly omitted.
I found my sense of self through cultural organizations, not classrooms. These spaces allowed me to revel with fellow first-generation Latinas who shared the struggle of finding cultural affirmation in Spanglish conversations, shared traditions, and the quest of shattering the glass ceiling.
The history of higher education in the United States has been marked by systemic barriers to access and opportunity that BIPOC communities face. Many students, researchers, and staff from marginalized backgrounds have historically faced exclusion, racism, and isolation within institutions that were originally designed to serve the interests of privileged elites. Cultural organizations at historically white institutions (HWIs) play a critical role in countering these historic inequities by offering safe spaces for individuals to connect, share experiences, and support each other in both academic and personal growth.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
However, as Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access (DEIA) standards come under attack, these protected classes face unique challenges, compounded by declining national enrollment rates. In this precarious landscape, cultural organizations and BIPOC Greek letter organizations must resolve, like Langston Hughes, to “Let America be America Again.”
For the past two years, I’ve served as a community leader for the Yale School of Medicine’s Latino Recovery Colectivo. Yale’s Latino Colectivo provides not only a sense of belonging and identity but also an avenue for fostering inclusivity and empowerment in environments that have historically been dominated by white voices.
As pushbacks on inclusion and access policies intensify and funding for such initiatives faces cuts, their capacity to support students in an increasingly hostile climate could be strained, especially when resources are increasingly allocated to programs that focus on a narrow vision of “meritocracy” or colorblindness.
As national enrollment rates continue to decline, institutions might also view such organizations through the lens of “cost-effectiveness,” questioning whether these programs are worth maintaining in a more competitive and financially uncertain climate.
Institutions like Yale, which have invested in inclusion and access initiatives in various forms, including supporting groups like the Colectivo, will undoubtedly face significant pressures to adapt. The mission of organizations like the Colectivo—to uplift Latino researchers and community voices, ensure equitable access to resources, and advocate for systemic change— could be compromised if institutional policies shift away from prioritizing equity. For example, the Colectivo may find itself without the necessary resources to provide services, advocacy, and networking opportunities for its members, all of which are vital in navigating the pressures of medical school and academia.
DEI programs are essential to tackle systemic barriers was first published by the CT Mirror and is shared with permission. Doris Maldonado Mendez is a member of the Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board.
The good of diversity must not be jettisoned from the workplace or eliminated from core American values in one sweeping move.
The recent Executive Order eliminates initiatives “including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
Following this declaration concerning diversity, it is crucial to remember the overwhelming good diversity actually does in the workplace. Diversity is not about checking a box. It is a vital tool for businesses, leaders, employees, and owners of public and private enterprises, as well as the global economy, to maximize profits and growth.
Any rhetoric war on these acronyms risks compromising strong commercial endeavors. Losing and replacing the workforce is hard; ensuring talent retention is necessary for innovation and profitability. Employees want to be a part of a meritocratic, dynamic, and inclusive workplace. Great leaders do not want to exist in an echo chamber.
The majority of people in this country agree. A Pew Research Center Study from 2023 reports that 56 percent of employed U.S. adults report “focusing on increasing” diversity “at work is a good thing.”
The case for diversity as a business asset is demonstrated in McKinsey & Co.’s frequently quoted report, Diversity Matters, with 2023 survey results from 1,265 companies in 23 countries across six global regions. The report shows companies in the “top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average nine percent more likely to outperform their peers.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Additionally, “Companies in the top quartile for board-gender diversity are 27 percent more likely to outperform financially than those in the bottom quartile. Similarly, companies in the top quartile for ethnically diverse boards are 13 percent more likely to outperform than those in the bottom quartile.” According to another McKinsey study, businesses that have a more diverse workforce have a 35% performance advantage over workforces that do not encourage diversity.
Innovation increases with diverse management teams, as research shows those teams deliver 19% higher revenues from new products compared to teams that are less diverse.
Most employees embrace diversity and consider it a factor in retention. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, examining attitudes on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace, found that 81-85 percent of employees across race and ethnic identities say their employer investing in these programs increases employee loyalty in the long term.
The mandate is that “federal agencies are directed to promote in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.” Indeed, initiative, excellence, and hard work are universal goals and are not undermined by a diverse workforce but rather are enhanced. Exceptional employees can come from any background.
The latest 2025 hiring trends show “that diverse workplaces foster innovation and attract top candidates," with 78% of the workforce stating that (diversity) is important to them. Companies that deprioritize diversity “risk losing out on both talent and long-term organizational success.”
A Glassdoor/Harris Poll reports that 32% of employees say they would not even apply for a job at a company that demonstrates a lack of diversity.
Hiring and retention are difficult in this economic environment – and expensive --with the 2024 Training Industry Report stating U.S. training expenditures totaled $98 billion in 2024. The stance on acronyms only compromises the strong commercial directive of talent acquisition. There is always an ongoing war to attract and retain the best talent, which American companies want to win.
Human resources experts recognize that to hire the best candidates, it is necessary to cast as wide a net as possible. Employers and leaders aim to attract the best talent across career stages with the widest range of backgrounds and experiences in order to produce and distribute the greatest range of products and services.
My family immigrated to the U.S. from India after I spent my childhood in the United Kingdom and Dubai. After graduating from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, I worked in financial services at Goldman Sachs for 10 years until I launched a financial technology company in 2017.
Today, as CEO of Ellevate Network, a professional network that now includes over 200,000 members globally across 31 cities, I lead a team that has worked with companies and their leaders for three decades to increase the diversity of their teams and improve their bottom line. The data speaks for itself.
There is something very specific, magical –and measurable—that happens when humans interact with each other without bias and discrimination. When you are in a work and networking environment where the best of the best convene, you will be challenged intellectually and creatively. If you want a competitive edge, you need to have access to as many different points of view as possible.
Saying no to diversity is saying no to success.
Anusha Harid-Paoletti is the CEO of Ellevate Network.
Colorful figures in a circle.
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, looking to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best as we can, we work to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.
However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
In the last three weeks, the news has been dominated by the Trump Administration's elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This writing presents our readers with just the facts on DEI.
QUESTION: What do the initials D, E, and I in DEI mean?
Diversity: This refers to the presence of differences within a given setting. It can include various dimensions such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, and more.
Equity: Equity is about ensuring fair treatment, opportunities, and advancement while striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. It involves leveling the playing field and addressing systemic inequities.
Inclusion: Inclusion refers to creating environments in which any individual or group can feel welcomed, respected, supported, and valued. It’s about ensuring that diverse individuals can fully participate in organizational and societal activities.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
QUESTION: Did DEI policies change under the Biden Administration?
TheBiden Administration made several changes to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. One of the key changes was the Executive Order 13985, issued on Biden's first day in office, which aimed to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government. This order led to the creation of Equity Action Plans by federal agencies to detail how they were furthering DEI initiatives.
QUESTION: Did President Trump sign an executive order ending DEI for the Federal Government?:
President Trump signed an executive order on January 22, 2025, to terminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs within the federal government. This order aimed to eliminate what the administration described as "illegal and immoral discrimination programs" and to ensure that federal employment practices, including hiring and promotions, were based solely on merit and individual performance, without considering DEI factors.
The order also directed federal agencies to combat DEI-related discrimination in the private sector and revoked previous executive orders that mandated affirmative action and other DEI initiatives.
QUESTION: Is there any evidence that Federal DEI practices or policies lowered standards?:
There's been a lot of debate around this topic. Critics, including former President Trump, have argued that DEI practices led to lowered standards, particularly in sectors like air traffic control. They claim that DEI initiatives resulted in hiring individuals who didn't meet the necessary qualifications, potentially compromising safety and efficiency.
However, supporters of DEI policies argue that these initiatives are designed to promote fairness and equal opportunity without compromising standards. They emphasize that DEI programs aim to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their background, have a fair chance at employment and advancement.
It's a contentious issue with strong opinions on both sides.
QUESTION: Does a diverse workforce increase productivity?
Research suggests that a diverse workforce can increase productivity. Here are a few key points:
However, it's important to note that the benefits of diversity are maximized when it is well-managed and when inclusive practices are in place to ensure that all employees feel supported and valued.
QUESTION: Which corporations have refused to eliminate DEI policies and which have rescinded DEI policies?
Several major corporations have recently taken different stances on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. Here's a brief overview:
QUESTION: Which state governments have DEI hiring policies?
State governments have taken varied approaches to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) hiring policies. Here's a brief overview:
The landscape is quite diverse, with some states doubling down on DEI efforts while others are scaling them back.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.
