ASU Needs Government Money so "DEI" is out

Arizona State University (ASU) sent out an email today announcing significant changes in its handling of federal grant applications and funds related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). This comes in response to recent guidance from federal agencies implementing a Trump executive order that prohibits federal funding for DEI-related activities. According to the email, “grantees shall cease and desist all DEIA activities required of their contracts or grants,” including plans, training, reporting, and staffing considerations. Furthermore, any funds awarded specifically for DEI must now go unspent.

At first glance, this appears to be a sweeping change that could impact the role of DEI in federally funded research at ASU and other universities. However, a closer reading reveals that something is absent. There is no mention of the ideas/concepts behind DEI. The guidance sidesteps the ideas behind DEI and leaves open the possibility of continuing to teach, research, and even implement similar concepts—provided the language is altered to avoid the now-prohibited acronym.

The ASU email emphasizes compliance with the federal guidance while signaling to faculty how to adapt. While DEI-specific terminology is now verboten in federal grant applications, the underlying concepts can still be pursued as long as they are relabeled. The guidance does not address the ideological content of DEI but rather focuses on the terminology and explicit use of DEI plans or frameworks in grant applications.

This move exemplifies a broader trend: bureaucratic adjustments that satisfy the letter of the law without addressing the substance of the issue. Faculty can continue their work in areas related to diversity and inclusion by rebranding their research and programs under different names. In practice, this allows the university to maintain the status quo while formally complying with federal restrictions.

For example, we have entire schools founded on the ideas of DEI, critical race theory, and cultural Marxism, such as the School for Social Transformation or our Gender Studies programs. Will these be reorganized to comply with federal law? On their list of “what can I do with this degree” the first option is “be an activist.”

Professors will likely pivot to euphemisms and alternative frameworks to continue work aligned with DEI’s principles. Instead of “DEI training,” we might see “inclusive pedagogy workshops.” Instead of “DEI research,” proposals might highlight “addressing structural barriers” or “promoting equitable outcomes.” The language may change, but the ideas—and the funding—will remain largely intact.

This development at ASU illustrates the growing tension between federal oversight and institutional commitments to DEI. It also reveals the adaptability of academia in navigating political and legal constraints. While the guidance may curb the explicit use of DEI language, it is unlikely to significantly alter the ideological commitments that have become deeply entrenched in many universities.

The real question is whether this moment will spark a genuine reexamination of DEI’s role in higher education and its discriminatory practices—or whether it will simply result in a game of semantic musical chairs. For now, it seems that the latter is more likely.