UNC System Drops U.S. Diversity Requirement in Curriculum
Students entering UNC's Sonja Haynes Stone Center, which specializes in research and education around black history and culture. Source: UNC-Chapel Hill
As of Wednesday, February 5th, the University of North Carolina system is no longer mandating course requirements for classes dealing with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Executive Order 14173, entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” triggered this change and was signed into action by President Trump on January 21st. In the order, Trump emphasized that the order’s provisions ensure that protections under legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are “enforced for the benefit of all Americans,”. The statement asserted that DEI policies “deny, discredit, and undermine” American values such as individual merit. Consequently, this prompted a memo from Andrew Tripp, the UNC system’s Senior Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel, to let the colleges know that any future course offerings that are tied to aspects of DEI are currently suspended.
The recent DEI rollback policy has started to impact students’ degree plans. UNC Chapel Hill’s IDEAS In Action general education curriculum currently includes the “Power, Difference, and Inequality” (FC-POWER) requirement as part of its eight major focus capacities. FC-POWER remains in place for now, however, all other general education and major-specific DEI components have been suspended. Students who are currently enrolled in an affected course can receive general elective credit if they choose to remain in the class. However, they are also able to withdraw from said classes without penalty, and these courses will no longer fill the now-suspended diversity graduation requirements.
So what does this mean for the future of UNC education as a whole? In an email statement sent to The Hill, a spokesperson from UNC stated that “This does not affect any course content; it suspends any requirements for DEI-focused courses as a condition of graduation.”
While this statement frames the change as being less transformative, the policy’s impact has already begun largely reshaping course offerings. Nearly all classes within the FC-POWER focus capacity involve content that deals with intersectionality and stories surrounding marginalized populations, making it a potential target for future suspension. Examples include the classes “Black Nationalism in the United States” and "Remembering Race and Slavery." Although FC-Power is still intact, the discontinuation of other DEI-related graduation requirements sparks questions around possible upcoming changes to the curriculum.
Although the full extent of curriculum changes is unclear since the shift is so fresh, university leadership has suggested that further changes might be on the horizon. These shifts in general education requirements and available courses also extend to specialized programs centered around students from underrepresented identities, raising concerns about Carolina’s broader commitment to diversity. Beyond just required courses, UNC has long emphasized exposure to diverse perspectives, with the college even having establishments like the Sonja Haynes Stone Center that is meant to educate on black culture and history. Carolina's diversity and inclusion statement reinforces this, saying that their mission is to create an inclusive learning environment “where every person feels valued and has an opportunity to add value.”
In a recent article from the Daily Tar Heel, African, African American, and Diaspora Studies (AAAD) professor David Pier said that he sees courses around DEI as valuable teaching moments that expose students to experiences marginalized individuals have been and continue to be impacted by. In that same vein, removing emphasis from these types of courses could inherently stunt the concept of a well-rounded education. This awareness of societal issues and identity differences is largely beneficial in public-facing careers after UNC, such as spaces like teaching, medicine, and law. Threats of pulling funding could hinder this awareness and sensitivity around said differences.
However, proponents of Trump's executive order and other anti-DEI policies say that this sensitivity around identity conversations and issues is exactly where the problem lies. They see DEI courses in higher education as reinforcing ideas that certain races are more oppressed or experience greater challenges than others, creating rhetoric that is more divisive than inclusive. In terms of university admission, the Trump administration firmly states that the removal of DEI considerations will ensure that admission is based on personal merit and qualifications alone.
All in all, are the schools interpreting this policy change exactly as the Trump administration intended? As of now, the true answer remains unclear. Regardless of how the law is meant to be implemented, however, the stakes of violating it remain high. As Tripp highlighted in his memo to the chancellors, the universities risk losing $1.4 billion in research funding from the federal government if they fail to comply. This, alone, proves to be enough of a potential consequence for the university to make some drastic changes.
This should prove to be a significant transformation not just for the future of UNC education, but for the broader landscape of higher education in America.