My 5-year-old recently told me that it was unfair for her teacher to let her write “Like everyone else” from left to right. She was left-handed, and for her it stained the ink and felt embarrassed–though her right-handed friend had no problems. I affirmed her frustration. it yes Harder. But I also know that it is discomfort, not unfair.
I would respond differently if she told me stories about her school never containing black or Indian characters (her own identity), or skipped black history and Diwali while celebrating Halloween and Christmas. It’s not just feelings. This is the curriculum erase-the structure embedded in education invisible.
Higher education is now facing a similar test of insight. In recent weeks, the American Bar Association has suspended DEI certification requirements for law schools under pressure from the Trump administration. The University of Michigan closes its DEI program. Harvard University has received huge federal requests to remove its DEI program, re-admission and recruitment, and undergo an ideological audit.
Harvard’s decision to reject the federal final ATM’s decision (i.e. at the expense of more than $2 billion in research funding), is a rare but crucial example of institutional clarity. Harvard says the false equivalent of what now dominates our public discourse: discomfort is the same idea as discrimination.
Critics claim that Dei worked to create an exclusive climate that reflects the lack of “diversity of perspectives” and uses commitment to racial equality as a test framework for ideological wills. However, this framework ignores the history, context and practical purpose of DEI work, which is the best correction, namely the inequity of the cumulative white advantage built into higher education. When racism is called equivalent to structural exclusion, it deals with discomfort. Then, under this pretense, the federal government now imposes It’s own Touchstone Test – Seeking a dismantling practice designed to address structural injuries.
Now, the federal touchstone test has extended to teacher recruitment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under the Trump administration, has begun investigating whether Harvard recruitment practices discriminate against whites and other groups with overrepresented traditional representatives. The inquiry was covered in the language of civil rights enforcement, reflecting an unsettling reversal: efforts to address long-term exclusions were reconstituted and excluded. Instead of confronting the structural reality that makes a disproportionate white and male in academia, the survey uses the claim of “reverse discrimination” to undermine the mechanisms that arise to correct inequality. This is a strategic misreading of fairness – a tool of turning justice into a tool of suppression.
Similar to my daughter calling left-handed writing “unfair” because it causes feelings of discomfort and victimization (although without structural exclusion), the powerful opponents of dei manipulate fair language to demonstrate eligibility and suppress interventions to actual harm. “Race neutrality” is the legal novel of our time, just as “independence but equality” is in another era. Both erase history to support surface level equality and use the language of justice to cover up the harm. We see this logic among students to conduct fair admissions rulings, which limits racial awareness admissions. But, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent, the deep racial disparities we see today are “created in the distant past, but undisputedly passed to today.” The question is not that much about race is talked about, but that we refuse to hear the game.
Now, under the guise of neutrality, institutions are forced to abandon their jobs, review courses and silent student voices. Many institutions’ behavior seems to be guided by law. However, SFFA’s decision does not prohibit DEI programming or racially based affinity space, racial climate assessment or consideration of life experiences in admissions articles.
This is an explanatory excess: expanding legal decisions out of fear. In this way, institutions not only undermine their policies, but their principles. But there is another way – what I call an explanatory reimagination. This is the ambiguity that fits the purpose rather than retreating is the clarity of morality. Not only as a response to compliance, but also as a mission. This recognition is at the heart of racial literacy, and this discernment is the ability to distinguish discomfort from structural harm. This means recognizing that not every claim of unfairness is equal and that treating them in this way will perpetuate injustice. This recognition is crucial for educators and institutions.
What we witness is not only policy shifts. It is a redefinition of fairness – an effort to name efforts inequality while controlling ideology as “diversity of perspectives.” This redefinition is carried out not only through rhetoric, but through decrees, audits and intimidation. Harvard’s rejection of affairs – not because the institution is perfect, but because it breaks the pattern. It reminds us that higher education still has options. The comparison with Michigan and the ABA is illuminating. When institutions preempt, they will legalize coercion. Not only do they narrow down the space for justice, they can also help close it.
Fairness, fairness and justice are not the idea of a solution. They are controversial. Higher education is not outside of this game, it is the main location. To satisfy this moment with integrity, we must reject neutral fantasies, have advantageous names, and devote ourselves to teaching the truth, even if the truth is inconvenient. The difference between choosing caution or courage will depend on whether we, as educators, practice the insight that parents are asked for every day. Because in the end, it’s not just legal compliance or institutional risk. It’s about whether the stories we tell about fairness will include all of us, or only those who are already at the center.
