Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (Dylan C. Penningroth)

From the Stanford Humanities Center: 

As part of our online Inside the Center series, Dylan C. Penningroth, a 2013–14 SHC fellow, discusses his latest book, "Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights." Joining him in conversation is historian and Stanford professor James T. Campbell. Through an empirically rich historical investigation into the changing meaning of civil rights, "Before the Movement" seeks to change the way we think about Black history itself. Weaving together a variety of sources—from state and federal appellate courts to long-forgotten documents found in county courthouse basements, from family interviews to church records—the book tries to reveal how African Americans thought about, talked about, and used the law long before the marches of the 1960s. In a world that denied their constitutional rights, Black people built lives for themselves through common law “rights of everyday use.”

U.S. Department of Education's Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

The U.S. Department of Education has announced a team of senior-level political appointees who will support the implementation of President Trump’s America First agenda.  

The Trump Administration, by Executive Order, has already required colleges and universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion measures and schools are scrambling to be compliant with this new federal policy. New policies may also affect grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Notable actions the Department of Education has already taken include: 

• Dissolution of the Department’s Diversity & Inclusion Council, effective immediately;
  • Background:The Diversity & Inclusion Council was established following Executive Order 13583 under then - President Obama. President Trump has rescinded the Executive Orders that guide the Council and issued a new Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” that terminates groups like the Diversity & Inclusion Council. DEI documents issued and related actions taken by the Council have been withdrawn.
• Dissolution of the Employee Engagement Diversity Equity Inclusion Accessibility Council (EEDIAC) within the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), effective immediately and pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”;
• Cancellation of ongoing DEI training and service contracts which total over $2.6 million;
• Withdrawal of the Department’s Equity Action Plan;
• Placement of career Department staff tasked with implementing the previous administration’s DEI initiatives on paid administrative leave; and
• Identification for removal of over 200 web pages from the Department’s website that housed DEI resources and encouraged schools and institutions of higher education to promote or endorse harmful ideological programs.

At least four appointees to the Department of Education, as well as including incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, have worked at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). AFPI's higher education proposals are posted here and noted at the bottom of this article. AFPI has been accused of using dark money to prevent student loan forgiveness and its rhetoric clearly advances this agenda.

Rachel Oglesby – Chief of Staff

Rachel Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute's Chief State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom, create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

Jonathan Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that, he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from 2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

Virginia “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign, where she spearheaded all event operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and legal studies.

Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

Steve Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT, he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

Tom Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety, and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education. He has also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory Reform Task Force, and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force, where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal, state, and local public entities including educational institutions and law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

Craig Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division, the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses, resulting in the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

Madi Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications professional with experience spanning both federal and state government and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration. Madi received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from the University of Southern California. 

Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

Candice Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel, from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in Washington State and California and consulted with groups and individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of "gender identity" in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary, age 11. 

Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

Joshua Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual, he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale College. 

Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Hannah Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion from Yale Divinity School.

AFPI Reform Priorities

AFPI's higher education priorities are to:

• Reform America’s Dysfunctional Higher Education Accreditation System

• Rethink Public Financing of Postsecondary Study to Encourage Competition and Accountability

• Open New Pathways to Family-Sustaining Careers

• Combat the Politicization of Higher Education and Encourage Viewpoint Diversity on U.S. Campuses

• Protect Students’ and Professors’ First Amendment Rights

 Related links:

Trump's Education Department dismantles DEI measures, suspends staff (USA Today) 

California State University changes 'illegal' program that excluded White men (Fox News)

America First Policy Institute Team

America First Policy Initiatives

How President Trump's Executive Orders May Affect Higher Education (Glen McGhee)

Here are the key executive orders and actions President Trump has issued so far that may affect higher education:

1. Signed an executive order to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies, including in higher education[4]. This order aims to end what the administration calls "divisive preferential hierarchy" in favor of merit-based systems[4].

2. Issued an order to freeze hiring at federal agencies, including the Department of Education[3]. This could potentially lead to a reduction in staff and expertise at the department.

3. Directed federal employees, including those in education-related agencies, to return to full-time in-office work, potentially ending telework arrangements[3].

4. Signed an order making it easier to remove career staffers in policy-related positions by reclassifying them as political appointees[3]. [[BELOW for analysis]]

5. Required companies with federal contracts to certify they do not maintain DEI programs defined as "discriminatory practices" by the order[4].

6. Authorized immigration enforcement on school campuses, which could affect international students and undocumented students in higher education[9].

These executive orders have already faced criticism and potential legal challenges from civil rights organizations, business leaders, and education advocates[4][7][8]. The full impact of these orders on higher education remains to be seen, as some may be tied up in courts or face legislative challenges[7].

Citations:
[1] https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=412157
[2] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/01/20/now-office-how-trump-could-overhaul-higher-ed
[3] https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-will-trumps-orders-for-federal-workers-do-to-the-education-department/2025/01
[4] https://www.diverseeducation.com/leadership-policy/article/15712680/trump-executive-order-targets-federal-dei-initiatives-drawing-swift-backlash
[5] https://www.chronicle.com/article/trump-has-issued-a-blitz-of-executive-orders-some-could-affect-higher-ed
[6] https://www.capradio.org/articles/2025/01/21/trump-is-signing-a-flurry-of-executive-orders-heres-how-those-work/
[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/21/trump-executive-orders-challenges-lawsuits/
[8] https://www.presidentsalliance.org/press/presidents-alliance-reacts-to-harmful-impact-of-new-administrations-executive-orders/
[9] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2025/01/21/trump-executive-orders-immigration-schools/77851480007/
==========================================================
President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, that aims to make it easier to remove certain federal employees by reclassifying them into a new category called "Schedule Policy/Career"[1][2]. This order is a reinstatement of a similar policy from Trump's previous administration, which was known as "Schedule F"[1].

The key points of this executive order are:
1. It targets federal employees in "policy-influencing positions"[3].
2. It reclassifies these employees, potentially stripping them of civil service protections[2].
3. The order argues that this change is necessary to ensure accountability and loyalty to the President's policies[3]. 

Critics argue that this order:
1. Could lead to the politicization of the civil service[2].
2. Might result in career officials being dismissed for political reasons[2].
3. May affect tens of thousands of federal employees[7].

The legality of this executive order is being questioned, and federal worker unions are expected to challenge it in court[4][6]. The implementation of this order could significantly impact the structure and functioning of federal agencies, including the Department of Education[4].

Citations:
[1] https://www.meritalk.com/articles/president-reinstates-schedule-f-classification-for-feds/
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/20/politics/federal-employee-protections-trump-executive-order/index.html
[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-accountability-to-policy-influencing-positions-within-the-federal-workforce/
[4] https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-will-trumps-orders-for-federal-workers-do-to-the-education-department/2025/01
[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-unleashes-wave-of-executive-orders-in-promised-overhaul-of-u-s-policies
[6] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5098444-federal-worker-union-sues-trump-schedule-f/
[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/20/trump-schedule-f-reinstated/
[8] https://www.afge.org/publication/trump-order-politicizing-federal-workers-threatens-integrity-of-government-work-union-leader-says/

The Myth That Made Us (Jeff Fuhrer)

From MIT Press: 

"The Myth That Made Us exposes how false narratives—of a supposedly post-racist nation, of the self-made man, of the primacy of profit- and shareholder value-maximizing for businesses, and of minimal government interference—have been used to excuse gross inequities and to shape and sustain the US economic system that delivers them. Jeff Fuhrer argues that systemic racism continues to produce vastly disparate outcomes and that our brand of capitalism favors doing little to reduce disparities. Evidence from other developed capitalist economies shows it doesn't have to be that way. We broke this (mean-spirited) economy. We can fix it." 

"Rather than merely laying blame at the feet of both conservatives and liberals for aiding and abetting an unjust system, Fuhrer charts a way forward. He supplements evidence from data with insights from community voices and outlines a system that provides more equal opportunity to accumulate both human and financial capital. His key areas of focus include universal access to high-quality early childhood education; more effective use of our community college system as a pathway to stable employment; restructuring key aspects of the low-wage workplace; providing affordable housing and transit links; supporting people of color by serving as mentors, coaches, and allies; and implementing Baby Bonds and Reparations programs to address the accumulated loss of wealth among Black people due to the legacy of enslavement and institutional discrimination. Fuhrer emphasizes embracing humility, research-based approaches, and community involvement as ways to improve economic opportunity."

Higher Education – Nowhere to Go (Gary Roth)

 “All we want are the facts, ma’am.” Jack Webb, from the television series, Dragnet (1951-1959)

If it were a matter of the facts alone, the right-wing attack on higher education would be unintelligible. From the attacks, one might think that the college scene is hugely skewed in favor of the underrepresented students towards whom diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are directed. Yet, a quick glance at census data (Chart 1) shows that collegiate admissions fairly accurately reflect the diversity that marks the population as a whole.

DEI initiatives are focused on the racial and ethnic differentials that have characterized the admission, retention, and graduation of college students, as defined by the broad demographic categories used in government publications and legislation. While initial enrollment rates have narrowed, they are still considerable gaps between groups, especially when the performance of Asian students are part of the comparison. Whites, Blacks (African Americans), and Hispanics (Latinx) lag some 20-25 percent behind. Larger disparities also define retention and graduation rates, over which colleges and universities seemingly have greater impact.[1] DEI initiatives are aimed at these interlocking factors.

Noteworthy in the data about higher education is the dramatic falloff in White participation. Whites are the only demographic group whose participation in higher education is less than their proportion in the general population, while every other group has either held their own or increased their collegiate participation beyond their presence within the general population.

The situation facing Whites has been interpreted in two broad and seemingly contradictory manners. In one, Whites, especially from the working class, are mired in a deep crisis that manifests in a decline in longevity, catastrophic rates of drug (fentanyl) and alcohol addiction, a paranoid perception of reality that leads to high rates of gun ownership, and a propensity to adopt outlandish theories regarding political behavior.

The other interpretation views Whites as a group that can heavily rely on kinship and friendship networks, neighborhood contacts, and their identity as Whites as means to procure jobs, thus obviating the need for a collegiate education as a pathway to employment. It is also possible that these two interpretations are flipsides of the same phenomenon, of a working class that is both relatively favored (privileged) vis-à-vis underrepresented minorities and deeply depressed regarding its present and future possibilities.

In hindsight, the fault of DEI programs is not their attention to African American and Latinx students, but their failure to include White students in their initiatives. Nonetheless, this limitation does not affirm the right-wing criticisms. Genuine concern would call not for the dismantling of DEI initiates, but for extra funding and a broadened scope. Instead, for the right, it is the group with the lowest rate of participation in higher education that becomes the vantage point for viewing the achievements of everyone else.

CHART 1 – RACIAL & ETHNICITY DIVERSITY^[2]

(in percents)	Higher Education	US Population
Asian	8	6
Black (African American)	13	13
Hispanic (Latinx)	22	19
White	52	59
Two or More Races (Multiracial)	4	2

The right-wing has focused on state universities because of their use of government funds. Less obvious is the attention paid to the privately-governed and privately-endowed top-tier schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (HYP). In 2022, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton each limited their admissions to 2, 3, and 6 percent of their respective applicant pools, a level of selectivity found among other top-tier institutions as well. Considering that one-quarter of 4-year baccalaureate institutions abide by ‘open admissions’ policies, through which any applicant who satisfies the minimum entrance requirements and can afford the tuition and fees is admitted, and that only 10 percent of institutions accept less than half of their applicants, this indeed is a rarified situation.[3]

Each of these three institutions is characterized by a similar student demographic profile:

CHART 2 – RACE AND ETHNICITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS^[4]

(in percents)	Harvard	Yale	Princeton
Asian	21	22	24
Black	9	8	8
Hispanic	12	15	10
White	35	35	38
Non-Resident Alien (International)	13	10	12
Two or More Races	7	7	7

Of upmost importance in terms of diversity is that no single group at any of the three institutions dominates demographically, a circumstance true at other top-tier institutions as well. When on campus, everyone belongs to a minority. Top-tier institutions now mirror the situation that developed at urban public institutions a quarter of a century ago. While whites remain the largest group, they no longer form the majority of the student population.

The top-tier colleges have embarked on a huge endeavor to integrate and diversify the top tiers of American society, insofar as their graduates are destined for lofty careers in business, government, the professions, academe, and in the non-profit sector. But despite the diversity at these institutions, traditionally underrepresented groups—specifically, Blacks and Hispanics—remain underrepresented. Diversity has not benefitted them in such a fashion that they attend top-tier colleges in numbers that reflect their overall participation in higher education or their presence in the population at large (Charts 1 and 2).

Alongside the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics comes the underrepresentation of Whites. The group with the highest rates of college enrollment are Asians, yet they have not been a essential component of DEI efforts. Rather, it has been the stagnating middle that has been its focus.

Socioeconomic diversity is another area to which top-tier institutions have turned their attention, a development that began in earnest around the start of this century. In higher education, socioeconomic diversity is typically measured by the percent of students who receive Pell grants, the federally-funded awards that are based on a student’s family income. Complicated formulas determine who is eligible and the size of the award, but roughly, a family of three whose total income is less than $50,000 qualifies for the maximum.

Regardless of the details, the percent of a student body that receives Pell grants gives some measure of its socioeconomic diversity, that is, the degree to which an institution recruits its students from the bottom income tiers of society. In rough terms, it is a measure of an institution’s appeal to applicants from working- and lower-middle class backgrounds, groups for whom access to top-tier institutions has been extremely limited.

At HYP, nearly one in five students are drawn from these two strata. This remarkable transformation has been made possible by the extensive endowments (in the billions of dollars) at each of the institutions:

CHART 3 – SOCIOECONOMIC DIVERSITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS[5]

(in percents)	Harvard	Yale	Princeton
Socioeconomic Diversity	16	19	20

In terms of class, race, and ethnicity as a composite, these institutions have achieved a level of diversity that few other institutions of higher education in the US have been able to match. In this broad sense, the top-tier institutions are the model for DEI initiatives across higher education and also the target for criticisms of those initiatives.

It is cheaper for all students, except for the wealthiest, to attend schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton than to attend nearby publicly-funded flagship institutions. For a family with an annual income under $30,000, the out-of-pocket contribution (costs minus grants) calculates to $5,900. Were that same student to attend the flagship public university in Massachusetts, UMass-Amherst, the out-of-pocket contribution would be $10,858. Analogous calculations are possible for all income groups except for the very highest. Only top-earning families face a situation where it is cheaper to attend a public flagship than a private top-tier institution:

CHART 4 - ANNUAL NET COST OF ATTENDANCE[6]

(family income)	Harvard	UMass-Amherst
Less than $30,000	$5,900	$10,858
$30,001 - $48,000	$3,002	$11,824
$48,001 - $75,000	$4,180	$15,768
$75,001 - $110,000	$17,037	$22,651
Over $110,001	$54,634	$29,809

Similar juxtapositions are possible for Yale and the University of Connecticut-Storrs, Princeton and nearby Rutgers-New Brunswick, and all other top-tier institutions in comparison to the flagship public universities in their respective states.

Yet, as diverse as the top-tier institutions are, they still lag higher education in general, where nearly one in three (30 percent) receive an income-based federal (Pell) grant. As with elsewhere in higher education, the ability-to-pay remains a primary consideration of the admissions process.

The next developments within higher education are far from clear, if only because the global situation in which it is embedded is undergoing a rapid and thoroughgoing transformation. It is hard to imagine that colleges and universities will be able to move beyond the levels of diversity they have achieved so far. Not even the wealthiest of collegiate institutions have been able to assemble student bodies that faithfully reflect the diversity of the population.

Collegiate enrollments have stagnated for over a decade already, and all collegiate enterprises—except for the wealthy, top-tier institutions—are scrambling to shore up their financing. Government largesse, during an era in which any large increase in public spending threatens to re-inflate the economy, is not to be expected, no matter who is in control.

The liberal agenda is stalled and in any case aims to maintain the status quo of the recent past, no matter how inadequate it has been. The right-wing agenda is focused on budget cuts as a means to reduce taxes, primarily for people who already squander their money in speculative investments and junkets into outer space. Perhaps the right-wing attack on higher education is best understood in this light, not according to the facts but as an off-kilter means to cut government spending and also undermine any commitment to social goals that might get in the way. Neither liberal society nor its right-wing corollary has a vision of a better future.

[1] Jennifer Ma and Matea Pender, “Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society,” College Board, Education Pays 2023, Figures 1.1B, 1.6A; A. Gardner, A., “Persistence and Retention: Fall 2020 Beginning Postsecondary Student Cohort,” June 2022, National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, PersistenceRetention2022.pdf, Figure 2a.

[2] National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2023, Digest of Education Statistics-Most Current Digest Tables, Tables 101.20, 306.10.

[3] National Center for Education Statistics. “Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions,” August 2023, Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions.

[4] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Race/Ethnicity.

[5] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Socio-Economic Diversity.

[6] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Cost, Average Annual Cost.

Republicans Continue Their Crusade Against CRT And DEI Initiatives (Forbes Breaking News)

Defending DEI Programming at the University of Michigan

More than 500 people have signed a petition in favor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programming that has been part of the University of Michigan for years, and a rally was held yesterday in support of the programs. 

According to the petition:

It has been confirmed by multiple sources that the Regents met earlier this month in a private meeting with a small subgroup of central leadership members, and among the topics discussed was the future of DEI programming at UM, including possibly defunding DEI in the next fiscal year. Our understanding is that the Regents may announce or vote to implement the plan as early as December 5th (their next scheduled meeting), before the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

Diversity, equity, and inclusivity are imperative to address systemic and structural inequities. They are also stated core values of the University of Michigan. We must remind the Regents that changes to DEI are not in their mandate, which is purely financial oversight, and we must remind them of the importance of shielding our ethical commitments from political pressure.

Good ideas are stolen. Great ideas are buried. We uncover both. And we publish them.

Over the course of our tenure at the Higher Education Inquirer, we have discovered that the US political economy (including the higher education system that serves it) is in a state of dysfunction-that the situation is worsening--and that there is some resistance (and hope). 

This critical analysis is not merely a belief, but something that can be objectively measured, whether its child poverty, student loan debt, loss of good jobs and union busting, mental illness and suicide, social inequality, life expectancy, or global climate chaos. 

It can also be measured in protests, strikes, and progressive social change.  

It doesn't have to be this way, but lots of American time and energy is spent with greed and fear in mind, instead of improving quality of life and sustaining the planet. That's why the Higher Education Inquirer exists: not just to expose rampant corruption, but to provide viable, detailed, life-sustaining alternatives. 

We aim not just to educate, but to agitate and help organize. We are not ashamed to say that our list of guest authors and contributors reflects human diversity, equity, inclusion--and justice for students, workers, and activists--people who are often marginalized and silenced by the higher education establishment and the higher ed business.   

Unlike other sources, we believe in the power of the People.

If you have good ideas and great ideas for higher education, send them to us. If you have stories of challenges and resistance, send them. We'll publish them when others won't. If you fear retribution or ridicule, we'll publish those stories anonymously. And the good ideas (and great ideas) will get out.  

Related links:

Ahead of the Learned Herd: Why the Higher Education Inquirer Grows During the Endless College Meltdown

Higher Education, Technology, and A Growing Social Anxiety

A People's History of Higher Education in the US?