This post is inspired by a colleague who recently reached out after a university administrator asked them to change a public diversity event in their department, citing a complaint and vague concerns about legal risk. Around the same time, I read a piece by Michigan State University Regent Rema Vassar entitled MSU must return what they took — and add more on Bridge Michigan. Both of these sharpened the urgency of this conversation.

In her article, Regent Vassar argues that Michigan State University should return the DEI strategy it dismantled under the false pretense of legal compliance and then do much more to support student, staff, and faculty success and opportunity. She is direct that the legal uncertainty institutions relied upon no longer exists in the federal courts. She is equally direct that retreat from equity was a choice, not a mandate. Together, my colleague’s experience and Regent Vassar’s analysis make clear that this issue resonates far beyond one campus or one institution.

Regent Vassar’s central claim is both narrow and expansive. Narrow because she documents specific institutional anti-DEI actions taken during the past year at MSU under claims of legal necessity. Expansive because those actions mirror decisions made across nonprofits, school systems, universities, and corporate organizations nationwide. Her essay forces an uncomfortable but necessary question. Now that the federal courts have spoken clearly, what are institutions actually doing to deconstruct DEI and why?

This post builds on that question. It extends Regent Vassar’s argument across sectors that influence opportunity, access, and belonging. It asks what leaders should do now that the legal fog has lifted. It also asks how educators should respond when pressure comes to cancel diversity initiatives. These questions demand clarity, not caution disguised as compliance.

Clarifying the Legal Landscape Across Sectors

I want to be clear about the current legal landscape because confusion has been allowed to spread across nonprofit organizations, K–12 schools, higher education, philanthropy, and corporate institutions alike. Diversity is not illegal in the United States. The federal court decision in American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education made that explicit by striking down the federal government’s attempt to chill lawful speech and programming related to DEI. The ruling applies broadly, not narrowly. It affects educators, employers, and institutions across sectors.

The withdrawal of the federal government’s appeal closed the case entirely. There is no pending litigation that requires hesitation by school districts, nonprofit boards, university leaders, or corporate compliance offices. There is no unresolved US Department of Education federal mandate compelling institutions to rename programs, close departments, or abandon DEI commitments. As Regent Vassar notes, there is now zero legal justification for continuing to act as if unconstitutional guidance still governs institutional behavior. Institutions that persist in retreat must now explain their choices honestly.

This clarity places responsibility back where it belongs. Decisions about diversity, equity, and inclusion rest with communities, governing boards, executives, and institutional leaders. The law does not compel retreat in K–12 education. The law does not demand silence or limitation on freedom of speech in higher education. The same is true for nonprofits and corporations. Values-based leadership, not legal ambiguity, now determines the path forward.

What the Court Actually Decided

The court found that the Department of Education attempted to redefine civil rights law through informal guidance rather than lawful authority. It also found that this effort interfered with protected speech and professional judgment. Regent Vassar highlights the judge’s conclusion that the guidance “stifled teachers’ free speech,” a finding with implications well beyond universities. This reasoning applies wherever lawful educational or organizational speech occurs.

The court did not rule that diversity initiatives violate civil rights law. It did not prohibit academic programs, cultural centers, employee resource groups, or DEI training. It did not order organizations to close offices or erase language related to inclusion. Regent Vassar emphasizes that none of the concepts institutions removed were ever legally banned. That point matters because it exposes how fear replaced fact (on purpose).

This distinction is essential across sectors. Legal compliance does not require abandoning commitments to DEI. Civil rights law prohibits discrimination, not inclusion. Institutions that claimed otherwise misrepresented the law to their communities. Rebuilding trust now requires telling the truth about what the law does and does not require.

Retreat Is a Choice Across Institutions

When schools, nonprofits, universities, or corporations step away from diversity work, that is not compliance with the law. It is a choice. That choice may be driven by political pressure, reputational anxiety, or leadership discomfort. It may also reflect political ideological alignment. Regent Vassar states plainly that dismantling DEI infrastructure was a choice, not a requirement, and that logic applies broadly.

Institutional behavior is contagious. K–12 districts watch what universities do. Nonprofits watch what funders and corporations do. Corporations watch what regulators appear to tolerate. Regent Vassar’s account of MSU demonstrates how one institution’s retreat from DEI can normalize withdrawal elsewhere. Silence at the top becomes instruction below.

Honesty requires acknowledging that these decisions reflect values. They reflect judgments about whose inclusion is negotiable. They reflect priorities about what is worth defending publicly. Regent Vassar exposes how legal language was used to shield problematic decisions from accountability. That shield is no longer credible.

Values Are Always Operating

Nonprofits, schools, universities, and corporations all operate with values whether they acknowledge them or not. Policies communicate priorities. Silence communicates boundaries. Avoidance communicates fear. Regent Vassar’s article makes clear that neutrality is often invoked to disguise decisions already made.

Claiming neutrality does not remove values from institutional action. It obscures them. Removing diversity language does not depoliticize an organization. It signals whose objections and complaints about the inclusion of everyone carries weight. Regent Vassar documents how institutions remained very silent even after the federal appeal was dropped. That silence itself has become a public statement.

Institutions therefore have a responsibility to name their values openly. Students, employees, families, and communities notice when commitments to success and opportunity for everyone quietly disappear. Trust erodes when leaders refuse to explain their choices. Regent Vassar’s argument shows that continuing to behave as if unconstitutional guidance applies reveals institutional priorities with uncomfortable clarity.

Shared Responsibility Beyond Philanthropy

Responsibility for this moment does not rest with educational leaders and practitioners alone. Nonprofit boards, school boards, university trustees, corporate executives, and foundation leaders and others shape organizational direction in our nation. Each has authority to decide whether to restore or continue dismantling DEI work that seeks to improve the success of everyone. Regent Vassar frames this moment as a test of leadership rather than compliance. Leadership requires judgment and courage, not deferral.

The legal excuse has disappeared across all sectors. The federal government abandoned its position. Federal courts resolved the question. Regent Vassar underscores that the government “gave up its legal fight,” eliminating justification for continued retreat. Institutions that still hide behind compliance language are thus now choosing misrepresentation.

There is also a credibility cost. Students notice when schools back away. Employees notice when corporations retreat. Communities notice when nonprofits and philanthropy go quiet. Regent Vassar illustrates how institutional silence has historically deepened harm during moments of political hostility. Credibility once lost is difficult to recover.

Power and Pressure Must Be Named

Pressure to abandon DEI work does not emerge spontaneously. It comes from identifiable sources and reflects longstanding ideological opposition to equity, history, and inclusion. That pressure has constantly affected school systems, universities, nonprofits, and corporations alike. Regent Vassar identifies political convenience as a driving force behind institutional decisions. Convenience, however, is never neutral.

When leaders respond by retreating from supporting ALL communities, they align with those values whether they intend to or not. Silence and neutrality becomes endorsement of exclusion. Distance becomes agreement. Regent Vassar documents how institutions continued dismantling programs even after legal clarity was achieved. Inaction communicates consent.

We can choose differently. Leaders can assert constitutional autonomy, academic freedom and free speech. They can defend lawful work. Regent Vassar’s call for restoration models what responsible leadership looks like. Resistance does not require confrontation. It requires clarity and commitment to everyone.

The Cost of Silence Across Communities

The consequences of the past year’s retreat are tangible. Students and faculty have lost support structures. Communities have lost trust. Programs built over decades were dismantled quickly. For example, Regent Vassar documents how student organizations at Michigan State University experienced dramatic funding reductions.

The educators, staff, and students affected feel the impact directly. They experience diminished climate, access, and increased vulnerability. They receive the message that their inclusion is conditional. Regent Vassar describes students being forced to dilute language or lose recognition. This is institutional decision made visible in daily life.

Silence from leadership amplifies harm. It teaches institutions that retreat carries fewer consequences than resistance. It normalizes abandonment of communities. Regent Vassar describes this silence occurring alongside documented hostility toward historically underrepresented groups (e.g. veteran, racial and ethnic communities, gender and sex-based communities, sexual orientation communities, disability communities, socioeconomic communities, immigration and citizenship status, religion and belief, language and culture, age and life stage, justice-impacted communities, education-specific contexts). That alignment reflects priorities and commitment, not accident.

Moving Forward With Integrity

This moment does not call for rebranding or euphemism. It calls for integrity across sectors. Integrity requires aligning actions with stated commitments (e.g. vision statements). Regent Vassar demands that institutions acknowledge that dismantling DEI work was a policy choice. Acknowledgment of exclusion is a prerequisite for repair.

Organizations can move forward by restoring what was removed. They can reinstate positions, programs, language, and support structures. Regent Vassar calls for restoration paired with accountability. Restoration without accountability invites repetition. Such action does not invite legal risk. It reflects constitutional clarity. It reflects confidence in mission. Regent Vassar argues that restoration alone is insufficient without deeper transformation. Transformation begins with truth.

What Institutions Must Decide Now

The question is now not what the law requires. That question has been resolved. DEI is not illegal. Regent Vassar states unequivocally that the legal case is now closed. Organizations can no longer hide behind uncertainty. The question is what institutions stand for. Will nonprofits, schools, universities, and corporations and other organizations lead with values or fear? Will they act with clarity or avoidance? Regent Vassar frames this as a choice between courage and convenience. That choice now belongs to all of us.

So what should you do if someone asks you to cancel diversity? Tell them let’s have a very public conversation about it and see what our community wants to do. Invite students, employees, families, and stakeholders into the discussion. Transparency is not weakness. It is democratic leadership. Every sector now faces the same responsibility. Decisions made from this point forward cannot be blamed on the law. They will reflect community character. As Regent Vassar concludes, excuses have run out, and what remains is the opportunity to lead with courage.

---

Julian Vasquez Heilig is a professor of educational leadership and research whose work focuses on the public purposes of education, academic freedom, and the role of schools and universities in democratic life. He has served in seven academic leadership roles, including six years as dean and provost, and regularly writes on issues at the intersection of education, policy, and civic responsibility. His scholarship and public commentary emphasize evidence, equity, and the conditions that allow knowledge to be produced, shared, and trusted.