Reference

Dutton, C. (2025). In Trump’s first weeks, dozens of colleges have shut down DEI efforts. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/in-trumps-first-weeks-dozens-of-colleges-have-shut-down-dei-efforts 

References

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2025). About us. highered.texas.gov. https://www.highered.texas.gov/ 

U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Mission of the U.S. department of education. ed.gov. https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/mission-of-the-us-department-of-education 

U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xiv 

Key Points:

• Ratified in 1868 as part of the Reconstruction Amendments. 

• Contains the citizenship clause, granting citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. 

• The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  

• The Equal Protection Clause requires states to treat all individuals equally under the law. 

• This law forms the constitutional basis for many civil rights protections in education and beyond.

State Constitutional Law:  

Tex. Const. art. I, § 8.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.1/CN.1.8.pdf 

Key Points:

• It guarantees freedom of speech and the press to every individual in Texas.  

• States that no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.  

• Provides strong protection for the open expression of ideas within public institutions. 

• Policies that restrict or ban DEI-related programming, language, or discussion could potentially be challenged as violations of this constitutional right to free expression.

Tex. Educ. Code § 51.3525.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.51.htm#51.3525

Key Points:

• Prohibits public colleges from establishing or maintaining DEI offices or assigning staff/contractors to perform DEI duties. 

• This law bans requiring DEI statements, giving preferential treatment, or mandating DEI training based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. 

• Requires institutions to adopt policies for disciplining employees or contractors who violate the provisions.  

• Institutions must certify compliance to access state-appropriated funds, and violations can lead to funding restrictions.

Administrative Law:

19 Tex. Admin. Code § 13.63.

https://texas-sos.appianportalsgov.com/rules-and-meetings?$locale=en_US&interface=VIEW_TAC_SUMMARY&queryAsDate=10%2F03%2F2025&recordId=216563 

Key Points:

• Requires state institutions of higher education to submit annual financial data to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.  

• Reports must follow the format set by the THECB and be submitted by January 1^st each year.  

• This law ensures financial transparency and accountability in how colleges use funds. 

• Since institutions must report financial data, they cannot secretly fund or create DEI initiatives outside of state law.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. V. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2023.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/20-1199/ 

Key Points:

• The Supreme Court held that the use of race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

• The Court ruled that admissions programs must be race-neutral and cannot use race as a factor in evaluating applicants.  

• This case effectively ended the practice of affirmative action in college admissions nationwide.  

• This case reshaped how institutions can pursue diversity, creating legal limits that directly impacted DEI initiatives in higher education.

34 C.F.R. § 100.3. 

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-100 

Key Points:

• This federal regulation prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Education.   

• This applies to various programs in higher education, particularly those at federally funded institutions.  

• The regulation requires institutions to take affirmative steps to ensure nondiscrimination in policies and practices.  

• Although this regulation protects students against discrimination, anti-DEI policies may complicate how institutions balance compliance while avoiding state-level restrictions on DEI programming.  

The University of Texas System. (2023). UTS 197 compliance with state law regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion in institutions of higher education. https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/policy-library/policies/uts-197-compliance-state-law-regarding-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-institutions-of-higher-education

Key Points:

• UTS 197 was implemented to ensure that all UT institutions are compliant with Senate Bill 17. 

• UTS 197 prohibits UT institutions from creating or maintaining DEI offices or roles, requiring DEI statements in hiring/admissions, mandating DEI training, and giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.  

• UTS 197 requires UT institutions to certify compliance, designate responsible contacts, and submit reports to the Chancellor.  

• Noncompliance can lead to disciplinary action and restrictions on state funding.  

• UTS 197 demonstrates how the University of Texas System is explicitly implementing state anti-DEI laws, which are reshaping campus policies.

• This strategy involves acknowledging certain risks as unavoidable (Foulis, 2021). In the context of anti-DEI, institutions may need to accept reputational challenges, student dissatisfaction, or criticism for following restrictive laws (Gavin, 2025). This is important because it allows leaders to prepare for challenges they cannot change while still maintaining a focus on lawful student support.

Risk Avoidance:

• This strategy means eliminating the risk of occurrence (Foulis, 2021). In the context of anti-DEI, this may involve eliminating DEI offices, refraining from including DEI statements in hiring, and modifying programs to adhere to state regulations. This is important because it ensures institutions avoid penalties, loss of funding, or lawsuits tied to non-compliance.

Risk Reduction:

• This strategy focuses on minimizing or preventing the negative impacts of the risk, making it more manageable (Foulis, 2021). In the context of anti-DEI, this could mean reframing DEI-related efforts around student success, retention, and well-being. Institutions could also provide clear staff training on allowed practices. This is significant because it ensures legal compliance while addressing diverse student needs ethically.

References

Foulis, D. (2021). What is a risk management strategy? Ideagen.com. https://www.ideagen.com/thought-leadership/blog/what-is-a-risk-management-strategy 

Gavin, M. (2025). “There is no workaround to this moment – we are all targets.” Timeshighered. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/there-no-workaround-moment-we-are-all-targets 

4. Responsibility to Society. 

https://myacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf 

Connection:

ACPA’s fourth ethical standard, Responsibility to Society, emphasizes the commitment of student affairs professionals to contribute to the betterment of their communities by respecting individual differences, protecting human rights, and fostering respect for human diversity within higher education. This principle directly connects to the challenges posed by anti-DEI laws, which restrict many of the practices traditionally used to support diverse student populations. For me, this creates a professional dilemma. Although I must comply with new legal requirements, my professional ethical responsibility requires me to continue advocating for inclusivity and equity. This means I must find innovative and lawful solutions to support vulnerable communities, ensuring their needs remain prioritized even within a shifting legal landscape. By staying committed to this principle, I can uphold both my professional values and the dignity of the students I serve.

Reference

ACPA. (n.d.). Statement of ethical principles & standards. https://myacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf

However, I do feel challenged by the reality that I must remain attentive to legal compliance while still striving to care deeply for my students. These connections have encouraged me to critically consider how I can creatively support students while remaining compliant with legal standards. Ultimately, this analysis has motivated me to pursue my educational and career goals with a stronger commitment to advocacy, ethical decision-making, and student well-being. 

• Stay Informed and Compliant: Student Affairs professionals must regularly review state and federal laws, institutional policies, and procedures to ensure practices align with legal requirements.

• Reframe Student Support: Institutions should develop universal student support centers that provide holistic services for all students and not use restrictive labels.

• Create Alternative Trainings: Administrative leadership and institutions can replace prohibited DEI trainings with belonging and engagement trainings for faculty and staff. These trainings can focus on student success, retention, and inclusive practices. 

• Foster a Culture of Holistic Support: Departments across the institution need to adopt practices that prioritize student well-being and success, particularly for diverse and vulnerable student populations.

• Provide Clear Staff Guidance: Institutions should ensure that their faculty and staff receive transparent communication on which practices are permissible and what is restricted.  

• Advocate within Ethical Boundaries: Student Affairs professionals can uphold their professional code of ethics, such as ACPA’s Responsibility to Society, by finding creative, lawful ways to advocate for diverse student populations.

• Communicate Transparently with Students: Institutions should communicate openly with students about policy shifts, making it clear that while compliance with anti-DEI is required, support systems remain in place. Institutions can reassure students that their needs are still prioritized and that they will continue to be supported despite this challenge. 

• Document and Demonstrate Compliance: Institutions must maintain accurate records of training, programming, and policy changes to ensure accountability and to remain eligible for state funding.

References

Lastres, M. R. (2025). Unraveling the legislative labyrinth: An inductive content analysis of assessment challenges and anti‐DEI policies across the United States. Assessment Update, 37(3), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.30441 

Ng, E., Fitzsimmons, T., Kulkarni, M., Ozturk, M. B., April, K., Banerjee, R., & Muhr, S. L. (2025). The anti-DEI agenda: Navigating the impact of Trump’s second term on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 44(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-02-2025-0116