The anti-DEI policies and laws enacted in the past few years may end up being symbolic, rather than truly transformative, if they don’t account for this reality.

W ith President Trump’s executive order banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the federal government, coupled with laws passed by several state legislatures targeting DEI in higher education, conservatives are celebrating significant victories. We appear to be at a turning point in the fight against DEI. However, as examples from my university illustrate, DEI has not been defeated — it has merely shifted tactics. Supporters of DEI have adapted to these new restrictions, ensuring that the influence of DEI is as pervasive as ever.

In 2023, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina System passed two policies designed to eliminate DEI initiatives in all public universities in the state. The first policy eliminated the existing DEI measures and introduced a directive emphasizing institutional neutrality. This change mandates that universities avoid involvement in political controversies; it led to the elimination of DEI offices and related positions on all campuses. The second policy targeted compelled speech, prohibiting universities from requiring job applicants, students, or faculty to affirm specific beliefs about contemporary political or social debates as a condition for employment, admission, or advancement. Together, these two policies were intended to depoliticize university operations and reinforce free expression. Unsurprisingly, they sparked controversy among faculty and administrators.

North Carolina’s General Assembly soon extended the policy against compelled speech to include all state employees. Under this law, any individual who compels speech from faculty job candidates in North Carolina is now in violation of both the board’s policy and state law.

North Carolina State University responded to these policies by making surface-level changes designed to appear compliant while retaining its DEI infrastructure. Rather than abolishing the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity, the university renamed it the “Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity.” When it became clear that the term “equity” remained problematic, the office was renamed yet again, just two weeks later, to the “Office of Equal Opportunity.” Despite these changes, not a single staff position was eliminated, and the staff pages showing two different teams focusing on inclusion and equity just had the team titles removed. This pattern extended throughout the university. For instance, the main DEI employee in the College of Sciences, the “assistant dean for inclusive excellence,” simply had her title changed to “associate dean for college success and well-being.”

All of these staff members were originally hired to promote DEI, and their professional backgrounds are focused on DEI. It is highly unlikely that these individuals will now shift their focus to champion equal opportunity, given their previous commitment to promoting the opposite of equal opportunity — equity, or equality of outcomes, a central tenet of DEI ideology. This minimal restructuring is intentional: The chancellor, a vocal advocate for DEI, has ensured that all DEI personnel at the university remain in place. By simply renaming positions and offices rather than eliminating them, the university has enabled these staff to continue advancing DEI initiatives discreetly, despite the new board policy.

The implementation of the law prohibiting compelled speech provoked significant backlash among faculty, who feared that the restrictions would hinder their ability to evaluate job candidates’ alignment with DEI ideology. In response, faculty and administrators carefully restructured university job advertisements to circumvent the new law. A recent ad for a faculty position in the College of Sciences provides a telling example of how these work-arounds are being implemented. The ad includes two seemingly innocuous statements: “Please visit our Sciences Strategic Plan and Sciences Culture Charter for additional information about the College of Sciences” and “Applicants are encouraged to review the institution’s mission, vision and strategic plan.” On the surface, these statements appear neutral, but they serve a strategic purpose by directing applicants to documents that contain explicit DEI commitments.

The university’s strategic plan contains several statements that reflect its commitment to DEI. For example:

The College of Sciences Strategic Plan outlines four priorities for faculty and staff, with “Advance Equity” prominently listed as the third priority. Similarly, the Culture Charter explicitly calls on faculty and staff to demonstrate fealty to DEI, including:

Faculty job candidates are highly perceptive; they understand the implications of being directed to review a strategic plan. They recognize that this request signals an expectation to be familiar with the content and prepared to discuss how they can contribute to the plan. By referencing these documents in job postings, faculty and administrators create opportunities to ask candidates indirect questions, such as “How will you contribute to Goal 4 of the University’s Strategic Plan?” or “What positive action will you take to support the Culture Charter?” These questions avoid directly asking, “Do you support diversity, equity, and inclusion?” But they still serve to assess a candidate’s alignment with DEI ideology. Their goal is to circumvent North Carolina’s law prohibiting compelled speech.

Note that this is happening in the sciences at a public university in a state that Trump won by three points. Imagine what is happening in other academic disciplines and public universities in less conservative states.

While laws and policies against DEI are an important first step, they are ineffective without strict enforcement and oversight. Legislatures and governing boards that have banned DEI in higher education must ensure that all DEI positions are fully eliminated, not simply renamed, and that individuals previously tasked with promoting DEI are terminated to prevent their ongoing influence on campus. Additionally, all references to DEI in university strategic plans should be removed, and documents provided to job candidates, such as NC State’s Culture Charter, must be closely scrutinized for mentions of DEI ideology. Without these actions, the higher education anti-DEI policies and laws enacted in the past few years risk being symbolic rather than truly transformative.