In just the first week of his second presidency, President Donald Trump has issued several monumental executive orders intended to roll back discriminatory “diversity, equity, and inclusion” ( DEI ) programs across the federal government.  ,  ,
Perhaps these extraordinary activities, however, will never win the battle against La by themselves.  ,  ,
As a former professor, I am aware that academic institutions continue to serve as the epicenter of the hazardous DEI ideology, and that academic deliberation will continue without further external pressure.  , In fact, Trump’s executive orders explicitly ( and appropriately ) exempted “academic instruction” in higher education from the new federal protections. The feds should make federal educational requirements for schools and colleges in all 50 states, which is the last point we need. However, state governments have both the straight and the duty to make sure that students in public institutions receive a thorough and useful knowledge in keeping with their traditional obligation to monitor public education.  ,
Additionally, to many public universities favor knowledge over indoctrination. The advocacy group Speech First released a report last year that revealed that two-thirds of big American colleges require students to take DEI programs just to graduate. Fifty-nine percentage of the colleges with La requirements were common, state taxpayer-funded institutions.  ,  ,
These constraints give DEI-based education at public universities a remarkable rebate. The Goldwater Institute, where I work, analyzed the cost of these required DEI programs for kids and citizens. Outcome: at least$ 1.8 billion and 35 million school days spent on required La training over each four-year time.  ,  ,
The Trump presidency is aggressively pursuing higher education discrimination. Trump directed the attorney general to look into and possibly re-establish companies that engage in unfair La that might include “institutions of higher education with assets over$ 1 billion”
Despite this, DEI courses are exempt from such scrutiny, and campuses may readily continue to offer and responsibility for coursework,  , giving this poisonous ideology huge funding and influence over millions of students. This anti-American creed will continue to be force-fed on the rising generation of American society.  ,  ,
As a former professor, I want to think that universities will respond to the spirit of Trump’s executive orders and take steps to reform these flawed curricula by removing DEI requirements. Unfortunately, I know better.  ,
The left’s long march through the institutions — and the use of tactics like “diversity statements” to screen out ideological diversity — has  , created an extremely lopsided faculty population. I was the only faculty member in the University of Kentucky’s honors college to be an unwavering conservative.  ,  ,
My university likely had more ideological diversity than the majority of the American academy. Only two faculty members from the entire Ivy League participated in Trump’s election campaign, according to Jay P. Greene of The Heritage Foundation, compared to about 900 Ivy League faculty who contributed to Kamala Harris.  ,  ,
Universities are likely to resist suggestions that they make significant changes to the curriculum, in part because of this ideological imbalance. I heard from my fellow professors repeatedly at the University of Kentucky that the curriculum was their exclusive right to study. No one outside of the university faculty, not even the members of the board of trustees, can legitimately inquire about the composition of the curriculum because they are experts in their field.  ,  ,
The issues with this viewpoint ought to be clear. Although professors are hired because they have expertise in a particular field, they are not by nature the only ones who have the ability to evaluate the standard of the education they offer. A homeowner may not be familiar with building a home, but she can certainly tell if it will meet her needs without knowing how to install drywall.  ,  ,
This is especially true for public universities. The people of each state have a right to inquire as to whether certain curricular requirements, such as required DEI courses, are actually appropriate because these institutions were created by state governments, heavily funded by state taxpayers, and supported by student tuition payments.  ,  ,
DEI requirements waste students ‘ time and tuition dollars while cultivating hatred, division, and distrust. It is scandalous that so many universities are pressuring students to take courses that have such perverse outcomes, even as the cost of attending college skyrockets.  ,
I am aware from my own experience that there aren’t enough detractors of the DEI orthodoxy in universities to cause meaningful change. State legislatures and university boards will have to take action to stop mandatory DEI indoctrination in the classroom.  ,  ,
Fortunately, Goldwater and Speech First succeeded in passing legislation to make DEI courses required in public universities as part of general education or major programs. Enacting this reform will prevent students from having to sit through lectures on academically unserious concepts like “microaggressions” and “preferred pronouns” to earn their degrees.  ,  ,
Under Gov. In recent weeks, lawmakers in states ranging from Wyoming to Iowa to Oklahoma to Arizona have introduced legislation freeing their students from DEI course mandates at all levels of curriculum. Ron DeSantis, Florida, has already successfully removed DEI courses from its general education catalogs. These policies represent a reasonable and necessary response to universities, which have  , prioritized indoctrination in anti-American dogma over real education.
Reforming college curricula will lead to the return of American universities ‘ main objectives, which are the pursuit of knowledge and truth and the preparation for thoughtful citizenship.
