On Jan. 20, President Donald J. Trump issued two executive orders: “Initial Recessions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” and “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The former revoked several Biden-era executive orders, including ones preventing discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation and advancing equity opportunities for Asian Americans. racial, gender, and sexual-orientation equity. The latter terminated all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government.
On Feb. 14, the Department of Education (DOE) sent a Dear Colleague Letter to all federally funded educational institutions, banning the consideration of race in “admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” within 14 days. Institutions failing to comply may risk investigation and loss of federal funding. This directive expanded upon the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that deemed race-conscious admissions unconstitutional, extending the restriction to other educational services and University activities.
Additionally, on Monday, Feb. 17, the DOE rescinded $600 million in grants aimed at training teachers in topics such as critical race theory, social justice activism, antiracism and white privilege, deeming them “inappropriate and unnecessary.”
In an interview with The News-Letter, Nathan Connolly, the Herbert Baxter Adams Associate Professor of History, contextualized the recent political developments as the latest in a series of efforts since the 1970s to undermine the creation of equitable and accountable institutions.
Connolly underscored that hiring Black faculty, accepting students of color and introducing women into the undergraduate population during different times in history was driven by threats to the University’s federal funding, and highlighted the critical role of DEI initiatives.
“Diversity on its own was not enough, because once you start bringing in people of color, it became clear that the institutions are themselves not suited to protect the needs of these people,” he stated. “You have to have more than just diversity — you need equity and inclusion.”
Stuart Schrader, Director of the Chloe Center for the Critical Study of Racism, Immigration, and Colonialism and Associate Professor of History, discussed the implications of the Jan. 20 executive orders in an interview with The News-Letter. He stated that the executive orders would not affect his teaching due to strong institutional commitments to academic freedom and noted that the Chloe Center does not rely on federal funding.
“The executive orders don’t have any effect on my teaching, nor do I think there will be any effects for the other faculty because there’s a broad commitment to academic freedom. [Additionally,] the Chloe Center does not get federal funding,” he said.
Regarding the Chloe Center’s newly established major, Critical Diaspora Studies, Schrader emphasized its analytical and contextual focus.
“The design of the Critical Diaspora Studies undergraduate major is not group based or identity based. [Instead,] political and social power are at the core of what we analyze,” he stated.
Robert Lieberman, the Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Political Science, discussed the impacts on his own research and the Political Science department in an interview with The News-Letter.
“Our department and the social sciences in general are not so directly dependent on federal funds compared to the School of Medicine or School of Public Health. [...] I don’t see any colleagues that will be directly affected in the short term,” he stated.
Last week, President Ronald J. Daniels, along with Johns Hopkins Medicine CEO Theodore L. DeWeese, sent a campus-wide email expressing their disapproval of the recent cuts to the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) funding and stating that the University had joined several other higher education institutions in a lawsuit against the NIH.
Connolly voiced worries that the University’s proactive approach to defend research and health may not transfer over to protection of humanities and social science scholarships targeted by President Trump.
“I am concerned that there might be an effort [for the University] to dig in their heels on questions of say, health or applied sciences, and offer as a kind of sacrificial offering those of us who are in more qualitative fields,” Connolly stated. “I think it would be the height of cowardice to simply treat those of us who do history fields and humanities fields as being in the way of university’s ‘real business.’”
Connolly further argued that anti-discrimination practices and scholarship in race are interconnected with work done in science and the applied fields and useful for students and scholars of all backgrounds.
“I think it’s important that the university really understands the braided history of anti-discrimination work and work in science, the applied fields and the policy arena,” he emphasized. “All of that is connected. I worry that those students who fought for new majors and those students who are clearly thirsty for answers to social and political challenges are going to be undermined by a reactionary approach.”
Lieberman echoed concerns to the University’s response to the executive orders, warning against quick action and reactionary cutbacks. As a former University provost and Columbia Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, Lieberman highlighted the role of diversity in education.
“Knowing that this administration is hostile to certain kinds of programs, institutions are trying to fit their programs into what they think the administration is going to want them to do in order to prevent being punished,” he stated. “The mission of the university depends on diversity. It’s a place where you bring together lots of people from different kinds of backgrounds who think about the world differently [...] and that’s how we make progress towards new knowledge.”
Additionally, Schrader cautioned that these executive orders disproportionately affect less wealthy institutions.
“The DEI framing tries to make an accusation that there is inequality within institutions, and the focus tends to be on elite institutions like Johns Hopkins, but the vast majority of institutions have less economic resources and are most imperiled by these moves,” he stated.
Public universities have already responded: North Carolina’s public universities no longer require DEI courses for graduation, the University of Colorado removed its primary DEI webpage, and Michigan State University initially canceled (but later reinstated) a Lunar New Year event after public backlash.
Lieberman highlighted the longstanding impacts of these policy shifts and cutbacks.
“[Trump] is looking to defund programs and fire people in the federal government, and it’s going to be very hard and require a lot of effort to put things back together,” he said. “He can do a very long lasting damage to these efforts in a short amount of time if [DEI] supporters don’t get in the way.”
The Dear Colleague letter from the DOE, which warned higher education institutions receiving federal funding about considering race in University activities, has also raised concerns about whether cultural student organizations and sororities and fraternities that are geared toward specific ethnic and racial groups would be permitted.
Some universities have already taken action regarding affinity groups. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point disbanded 12 student affinity groups while assessing their compliance with DEI orders, including the National Society of Black Engineers Club, the Asian-Pacific Forum Club and the Vietnamese-American Cadet Association.
A University spokesperson, in an email interview with The News-Letter, commented on the institution’s next steps.
“We are reviewing the executive orders and other recent directives to assess their impact on Johns Hopkins and our community,” the spokesperson stated.
Editor’s Note, 2024: A previous version of the article stated that the DOE mandated the consideration of race; the DOE banned the consideration of race from several educational practices. The News-Letter regrets this error.
EditorrEditor’s Note: A pervious
