This article was originally published by The Assembly on June 26 and is being shared with permission. You can find the original here. Find more about The Assembly's reporting partnership here. Click "LISTEN" to hear WHQR News Director talk with Erin Gretzinger about this reporting.
The rumors at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law started with the course “Black Lives Matter and the Law.”
A student enrolled in the class told The Assembly that Professor Maxine Eichner had said that this spring was the last time the class would be offered and that an associate dean had encouraged her to change its title.
Many students, especially the left-leaning ones, were already on high alert. Since his return to the Oval Office, Donald Trump has declared war on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs generally, and on higher education institutions in particular, which conservatives view as fostering an exclusive, discriminatory “woke” ideology.
Students also began hearing rumors this spring that UNC Law administrators were attempting to limit what professors could teach.
“Course selection is a big deal,” one first-year law student told The Assembly. “I really wanted to go to a school that had really diverse course options.”
Then the flyers started popping up.
An anonymous group of students slipped them into their classmates’ lockers and posted them on the school’s free speech board. One sign demanded that administrators “CEASE THEIR FECKLESS ACQUIESCENCE TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BY PREEMPTIVELY COMPLYING WITH DEMANDS THAT THREATEN THE LEGITIMACY OF THE EDUCATION WE PAY FOR” and claimed that Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs Craig Smith directed faculty to rename classes like “Black Lives Matter and the Law.”
At a schoolwide meeting at the end of March, Senior Associate Dean Kelly Podger Smith was standing on stage when she referenced an email the student protesters had just sent to prominent UNC Law alumni. It accused school leaders of participating in “back door, closed door meetings” where they agreed to change their curriculum.
In a recording of the meeting a student provided to The Assembly, Smith’s voice breaks as she reads portions of it to the crowd. “Sorry, I’m a little rattled,” she said, adding that UNC Law never asked professors to change course titles and/or cancel classes.
Eichner agreed. Two days after the meeting, she told her class in an email that her comments had been “misconstrued,” explaining that she had reached out to Craig Smith for advice because she worried the class title “would act as a lightning rod, drawing attention from folks outside the law school who are trying to gut courses relating to DEI.”
While the environment for academic freedom is “certainly more dangerous and threatening than any in my or your lifetimes,” Eichner wrote, she said no one from the law school suggested changing the title or said that “Black Lives Matter and the Law” couldn’t be taught. She’s scheduled to teach it again this fall.
But if the UNC Law students were targeting the wrong people with their anger, they weren’t alone in their confusion. University administrators across the state are navigating overwhelming, disorienting discord around DEI. Unraveling what’s changing in the current climate, not to mention why, has been a challenge for everyone involved.
UNC System schools in the last year have scrapped diversity offices, eliminated nearly 60 jobs, tossed graduation requirements that touched on DEI-related themes, and removed key words from websites and strategic plans. Three administrators are no longer employed at their schools after being secretly recorded telling undercover conservative activists that they continued to do diversity-related work under different names. Rumors and fear of changes to identity-related departments have swirled, though nothing has been announced.
“The system’s equality policy reinforces the core values that have underpinned decades of progress in higher education.”
UNC System President Peter Hans
The dynamic is also playing out quietly in the state’s largest private universities. While Duke University and Wake Forest University stood by DEI efforts after Trump took office, both schools announced reviews at the end of the semester of their diversity policies and new approaches to what they call “inclusive excellence.”
Some of the changes across the state came in response to directives from the federal government. Others appear to be proactive changes to ward off the White House’s scrutiny. And some reflect the influence of state legislators and officials who share the Trump administration’s disdain for DEI.
Administrators say they know the rules have changed, but they are still trying to figure out exactly how—and what that means for supporting a diverse student body.
UNC Wilmington Provost James Winebrake, who starts next month as president of Coastal Carolina University in South Carolina. “Just as a general statement, sometimes when you have vaguely worded orders that come out of Washington, there could be a tendency to overcomply or undercomply because you don’t really know what’s being asked of you.”
Wade Maki, a professor of philosophy at UNC Greensboro and the chair of the UNC System’s faculty assembly, concurred.
“We’re all driving down the same road,” he said. “We know there’s a lot of police—but we don’t know what the speed limit is.”
Shifting Winds
Up until last spring, the UNC System had spent years investing in programs to create a more welcoming environment on campuses, as had many of the state’s private schools.
In 2019, the system’s Board of Governors approved a requirement that all campuses hire a chief diversity officer and meet other related goals. The following year, days after the killing of George Floyd, the board established a Racial Equity Task Force that issued recommendations to increase DEI staffing, education, and activities. By the summer of 2021, the system had developed diversity and inclusion metrics and hired its own dedicated diversity officer.
“The UNC System seeks to ensure that its institutions foster diversity and inclusion,” the system wrote in a July 2021 report. “It is not only the right thing to do; it is also fundamental to the success of our universities and our state.”
Today, many of those positions and initiatives are moribund.
“Bending to the will of bullies and extremists is absolutely the wrong way for universities to respond right now.”
Belle Boggs, American Association of University Professors state president
Anti-DEI efforts began gaining momentum across the country after model legislation from conservative advocacy groups emerged in early 2023. That same year, the Supreme Court declared race-conscious admissions illegal in a ruling against UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard University. On the heels of anti-DEI laws in states like Texas and Florida, leaders in North Carolina’s Republican-led General Assembly floated axing diversity efforts, too.
The UNC System took action before it was forced to. After a Board of Governors committee voted last spring—with no public discussion—to repeal the 2019 policies, the full board approved a new “equality” policy that directed institutions to stay neutral on “political controversies of the day.”
Since then, campuses have eliminated dozens of positions, many of which were student-support jobs oriented around diversity efforts. Universities said some were already vacant or individuals moved to other positions, so it’s not clear how many layoffs the policy produced. The UNC System said 131 positions have been “realigned,” meaning assigned to other work. (At UNC-Chapel Hill, the “D” and “E” in some titles have become “dignity” and “excellence.”)
Seven UNC System schools eliminated campuswide DEI offices with no direct replacements, while another six redesigned them. Four schools never had them.
Then, shortly after Trump took office in January, he issued multiple executive orders on DEI efforts, which he alleges violate federal civil rights laws. The Department of Education also directed colleges to ban all race-conscious practices or risk losing federal funding.
Trump’s January 21 executive order ending federal DEI programs made immediate waves in North Carolina. The order promised forthcoming guidance to all colleges and universities that receive federal funding, but the UNC System didn’t wait. General Counsel Andrew Tripp issued a memo on February 5 laying out the system’s interpretation.
Though the system’s existing neutrality policy would largely ensure compliance with the executive order, Tripp wrote, “the risk of jeopardizing over $1.4B in critical federal research funding is simply too great to defer action.” The system suspended “all general education requirements and major-specific requirements mandating completion of course credits related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Chancellors of each campus could waive the rules for certain majors, and DEI-related courses could still be taught, Tripp wrote. But no student could be required to take them.
More than 330 colleges in 42 states have made changes to DEI-related activities, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education’s tracker. Some states, like Florida, have also sought to reduce certain courses in general education curricula. But to date, the UNC System is alone in citing the Trump directives as the impetus to significantly alter academic requirements.
“The choice that they’re making is a choice that other institutions are not, nationwide,” said Antonio Ingram, a senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund who has litigated multiple cases dealing with state efforts to change curricula.
The UNC System did not respond to specific questions. Instead, it provided a statement from UNC System President Peter Hans.
“Pluralism is a plain fact of American life. We live in a rich and diverse nation, and our public universities serve students of all backgrounds and beliefs. Welcoming the full breadth of talent in our society is a source of strength in the UNC System and for the state that we serve. To achieve that mission, we rely on longstanding and well-supported principles of equal opportunity, non-discrimination, and freedom of expression.”
“Many DEI efforts, however well-intended, too often risked or compromised those durable principles,” Hans’ statement continued. “The system’s equality policy reinforces the core values that have underpinned decades of progress in higher education and in American life more broadly.”
In the Public Eye
Five UNC System campuses had an explicit diversity requirement in their general education curricula as of spring 2025. UNC Greensboro, for example, eliminated a diversity and equity requirement. UNC-CH cut a “U.S. Diversity” requirement from a curriculum that was already being phased out.
Changing graduation requirements was relatively straightforward. What it meant for certain majors was less clear.
For instance, to add a concentration in British and American Literature to an English major at UNC-CH, students have been required to take a “Multi-Ethnic and Diversity course.” Is that a requirement that must be changed? Or is it exempt because students don’t have to choose that concentration—or to major in English at all, for that matter?
Many UNC-CH faculty interpreted it leniently, and the university’s Faculty Executive Committee wrote a public letter arguing that the current curriculum “is unaffected by the February 5 memo.”
Other faculty members have said they weren’t sure what counted as “DEI” curriculum. Maki, the faculty assembly chair, said directives from the White House, UNC System, and state use vague and inconsistent definitions. “They don’t even necessarily use the same terms, and simply saying ‘DEI’ doesn’t tell you a lot,” he said.
Some schools and departments sought waivers from the DEI ban because they had to require certain courses to maintain their accreditation, according to documents published by the Board of Governors. The social work programs at Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, North Carolina Central University, UNC Charlotte, UNC Greensboro, UNC Pembroke, and UNC-CH all cited standards defined by the Council on Social Work Education, their accrediting body, while applying for waivers.
“Social workers understand that, as a consequence of difference, a person’s life experiences may include oppression, poverty, marginalization, and alienation as well as privilege, power, and acclaim,” one mandated competency reads. Another says social workers must “demonstrate anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work practice.”
Board meeting materials shows 14 out 16 universities requested a waiver for at least one requirement. David English, the system’s chief academic officer, said 95 percent of waivers referenced licensure and accreditation requirements in programs for social work, nursing, education, counseling, and psychology. Universities did not have to report which major requirements they cut in response to the new policy.
UNC System leaders have said that changes to graduation requirements don’t limit what faculty can teach, just what students can be required to take. But Kevin Gannon, a Queens University of Charlotte history professor and director of the Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence, called that “disingenuous bullshit.”
“If a course is not required for some sort of program, what you are essentially saying to students, in a purely pragmatic sense, is this is less valuable, less of a priority,” he said.
“What we’re against is division, exclusion, and indoctrination.”
GOP state Rep. David Willis
Ian McNeely, the senior associate dean of undergraduate education in the College of Arts and Sciences at UNC-CH, said course content in the school has remained largely unchanged in response to the system’s memo.
“Professors’ academic freedom remains untouched and students continue to enjoy a fantastic variety of course choices,” McNeely said in an email to The Daily Tar Heel. “No one should worry that their education has been compromised in any way by this.”
An Assembly analysis of UNC-CH’s fall 2024 and fall 2025 courses shows that, broadly, course offerings have not significantly changed. While more than 800 of around 3,000 fall 2024 courses will not be offered next semester, that level of change is common as departments often rotate classes, account for faculty going on leave, and adapt to other mundane business changes.
There were 24 courses offered in both semesters that changed titles. Most changes were cosmetic, like changing “Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies” to “Introducing Intersectionality: Gender, Race, Class, and Sexuality.” The course description stayed the same.
Some conservative critics want the schools to do more to change their curricula. “Are N.C. Colleges Cutting Their Mandatory DEI Courses?” asked Ashlynn Warta, a writer at the right-leaning James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, in an April column. She concluded they were not, taking issue with UNC-CH’s “Power, Difference, and Inequality” requirement as “particularly suspicious.”
Along with its waiver requests, the university said in May that it changed the requirement’s name to “Power and Society.” Chancellor Lee Roberts wrote in a letter to system officials that the requirement was examined because it had language that “could be construed as requiring content in violation of the memo.” Colleges of Arts and Sciences Dean Jim White wrote that the requirement could be “incorrectly read or understood,” so a faculty committee worked to “simplify and clarify” the learning outcomes under the new name.
Rumors of more changes to come have continued to swirl, such as shuttering or combining identity-focused departments, like gender and Black studies. At UNC Charlotte, students in those programs worried their disciplines were at risk following the system’s memo.
Angelia Grant recently came back to UNC Charlotte to finish a degree in Africana Studies that she first began in 1988. Grant decided to return after decades away because she worried the program may be discontinued. “I’m pushing to get this degree because if they [the university] lose the funding, we might be the last group of folks that will be able to get that particular degree,” she said.
A UNC Charlotte spokesperson told The Assembly that they have not eliminated programs in response to the system’s curriculum memo and that the process for reviewing programs is led by faculty and deans.
“The speculation about what programs are facing is simply that, speculation,” Eddy Souffrant, professor of philosophy and chair of Africana Studies, wrote in a March email to the Niner Times.
But Gannon argues that closures are a possible result of the system policy.
“They are very clearly steering students toward certain classes and away from certain classes,” he said. “They’re giving those administrators an easy way to say, well, we’re not going to support these particular departments or these particular areas. It’s going to be a death sentence to programs like African American Studies.”
Inclusive excellence
DEI offices and programming have fared better at private schools like Duke and Wake Forest.
Throughout the academic year, both schools’ DEI offices were up and running. Identity-based student centers hosted a variety of regular events and promoted annual traditions, such as lavender graduations for LGBTQ students. Their commitments to fostering a diverse and inclusive community remain written into strategic plans.
At Duke, though, a Chronicle analysis of university messaging found that while the university had been public about the impact of Trump’s cuts to research funding and canceled student visas, it had been tight-lipped on DEI. On a website Duke created in mid-April for internal communications—which is only accessible via a university-issued email account—and in a series of closed-door faculty webinars, federal executive orders and actions on DEI were largely not discussed, The Chronicle found.
“There is so much uncertainty surrounding the executive orders that it’s too soon to make recommendations [about DEI],” Kimberly Hewitt, Duke’s chief diversity officer, wrote in a February email to The Chronicle. “For now, we have suggested that people refrain from making significant changes until we have more time to comprehend the directives and receive further guidance.”
Although the Trump administration has not gone after Duke like it has Harvard and Columbia, there is plenty of pressure. Duke is one of 45 schools under investigation for its partnership with a recruitment program that the Department of Education accused of race-exclusionary practices. Students for Fair Admissions, the group behind the case that led to the Supreme Court banning race-conscious admissions, has also raised questions about Duke’s admissions practices.
Some student leaders took notice of Duke’s lack of communication on DEI efforts. When 200 people protested Trump’s executive orders targeting higher education this spring, The Chronicle reported that dozens marched around East Campus chanting, “Duke, Duke, don’t comply! Don’t dismantle DEI!” Multiple op-eds run in The Chronicle highlighted students’ uncertainty about Duke’s stance.
The university provided an update a few days after finals ended.
In a private meeting with faculty on May 7, Duke officials said the university would pursue a new approach to DEI, to be determined by an “inclusive excellence working group.” Hewitt said the working group, formed in early April to “consider and respond” to federal changes, would provide guidance on a variety of programs and practices, including “broad-based outreach and recruitment” in admissions, identity-based affinity groups, employment, and fundraising.
“Duke programs and activities should be inclusive, welcoming and open to all members of the community, without regard for race, sex or any other protected characteristic, except in some limited circumstances where that is allowed under the law,” Hewitt said.
The term “inclusive excellence” has generated criticism from some DEI proponents who say it permits administrators to avoid talking in concrete terms about diversity goals.
In June, Hewitt and Duke’s Vice President for Communications, Marketing, and Public Affairs Frank Tramble asked at least one school to audit their websites and communications to remove “outdated” language, including references to “white privilege, white supremacy, and white fragility.” They also suggested reframing references to anti-racism in a more positive light, like advocating for racial equality.
“The inclusive excellence working group is providing supportive guidance to schools, departments and units to help ensure Duke’s practices and program communications are current, clear about their objectives and outcomes, and consistent with the principles the group has drafted from our institution’s core values: that programs are inclusive, welcoming and open to all,” a Duke spokesperson wrote in a statement.
“Faculty are worried that certain people, whether inside or outside the institution, will feel empowered to come after them.”
Mir Yarfitz, Wake Forest University history professor
In Winston-Salem, Wake Forest officials expressed support of DEI efforts throughout much of the semester. In mid-March, the university put out a statement titled “Affirming our institutional commitments,” including the DEI-related goals in its strategic plan. But in late April, a university spokesperson told the student newspaper the Old Gold & Black that while its core values remain unchanged, the university was paying close attention to demands from Washington.
“We may refine internal structures or approaches to ensure continuing compliance with legal requirements and alignment with Wake Forest’s mission,” Cheryl Walker, executive director of strategic communications, wrote in an email to the Old Gold & Black in late April.
Even though the administration seemed supportive, faculty and students who spoke with the student paper were getting worried.
Wake Forest’s new gen ed curriculum, called the 21st Century Stewardship requirement, has been years in the making. It includes a required course focusing on perspectives “outside of the hegemony of the Global North” and another course focused on “Power, Oppression and Resistance.”
Mir Yarfitz, an associate professor in the history department who served on the committee that helped develop the curriculum, said the Trump administration’s DEI actions have heightened some faculty members’ uneasiness about implementing the curriculum. Some wonder whether they will be supported in teaching classes associated with words like “power, oppression, and resistance” in the current environment, and whether they will be protected if courses come under scrutiny.
“Faculty are worried that certain people, whether inside or outside the institution, will feel empowered to come after them and not allow them to do their jobs, or make it harder for them to do their job,” Yarfitz said.
In May, more than 100 members of Wake Forest’s American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter passed a resolution asking for more guidelines and administrative support on implementing the new curriculum. It also asked for administrators to change the student code of conduct to ban audio or video recordings of classes.
On May 15, Wake Forest Chief Diversity Officer José Villalba sent a campuswide email announcing that the university would work over the summer to “re-envision” how it promotes “connections on campus” and broaden its approach to “inclusive excellence.” Villalba said the process would include pausing a plan for every department to adopt DEI goals.
“This re-envisioning process, as well as the timing of this announcement, coincides with our need to communicate our clear commitment and assurance that university actions and decisions are in compliance with federal laws and guidelines,” Villalba wrote in the email, which was accompanied by a video message.
Walker, the university’s communications director, said in a statement that the summer review of DEI programs is “actively exploring ways to articulate our long-standing and deeply held commitments to an environment where all in our community can thrive.” She added that all undergraduate students starting in fall 2025 will be required to complete the 21st Century Stewardship requirement.
“We offer hundreds of courses in a wide variety of fields that will satisfy the 21st Century Stewardship requirement,” Walker wrote. “The courses are common at colleges and universities across the nation. Students can choose those that fit their interests.”
Pressure and Pushback
Some schools are trying to thread the needle by reorienting DEI roles and programs into a focus on holistic support, known in higher ed parlance as “student success.”
A UNC Charlotte mentoring program called Students Achieving First-Year Excellence (SAFE) that was originally launched in the now-dismantled Office of Identity, Equity and Engagement was moved, along with its director, to the office of Leadership & Community Engagement.
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Kevin Bailey said the school would use savings from DEI programs to invest in those areas. “We have really good data and information about the value of the SAFE program,” he said.
Similarly, while N.C. State ended identity-based housing options like Black Male Initiative and Native Space, next year it will debut a new community that emphasizes wellness for first-year students. (Two housing programs for women will continue.)
But Gannon, the Queens professor, argues that such changes could be a way of quietly dismantling programs. And universal student success programs may benefit majority social groups more than minorities, eroding equity gains made over past decades.
“The cold, hard fact is that what we would term DEI work—that’s more effective,” he said. “It’s better for students. It’s better for faculty. It leads to increased learning outcomes. It leads to better persistence and retention rates. And now we can’t do it, or at least do it to the degree that we used to be able to.”
There are also risks to reorienting DEI programs as “student success” efforts. A UNC Charlotte Leadership & Community Engagement staffer is no longer employed after the conservative group Accuracy in Media secretly filmed her describing the office’s work as a “covert” way of continuing to support DEI.
“The word of the year is finesse,” said Janique Sanders, then-assistant director of the office. “I’m really dedicated to making sure our students feel loved and supported; I could care less about what you call my office.”
Accuracy in Media released similar videos from UNC Asheville, Western Carolina University, and UNC Wilmington. Three of the five employees are no longer employed by the schools, which have declined to say whether the employees were fired or resigned. UNC Wilmington is investigating the incident involving its two employees.
“It is very concerning that these universities reacted so quickly and with so little transparency about the process,” said Belle Boggs, an English professor at NC State and the president of the statewide AAUP chapter. “Bending to the will of bullies and extremists is absolutely the wrong way for universities to respond right now. We’ve already seen it won’t stop the bullies.”
Top officials in the state aren’t done battling DEI. After passing the state Senate and stalling for several weeks in the House, a Republican-sponsored bill titled “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Higher Ed” breezed through the House rules committee on Tuesday. The bill essentially codifies the steps the UNC System has taken to curtail DEI efforts and applies it to community colleges too—with added legislative oversight.
The committee moved to send the bill to the House for a vote. The chamber passed the bill on Wednesday and sent it to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein’s desk, who will have 10 days from the time he receives it to veto it or let it become law.
After the rules committee vote, Rep. David Willis, a Union County Republican who presented the bill, told The Assembly the legislature needed to take its action to align with the federal government and the Trump administration on DEI. He also pointed to the videos by Accuracy in Media as evidence more needed to be done.
“Nobody’s against diversity, equity, and inclusion,” he said. “What we’re against is division, exclusion, and indoctrination.”