Since his inauguration in January of 2025, President Trump has curtailed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government and in educational institutions.  Federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, have cancelled grants that support trainees from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds and research examining the experiences of marginalized group members, such as transgender and gender diverse/gender expansive/nonbinary people. Also, many private organizations have closed their DEI departments and laid off, reassigned, or fired people who work in DEI-related positions.

These actions have likely negatively impacted many SPSSI members because of what they study, who they are, or the intersection of both. As an assistant professor who studies stereotyping, prejudice, and prejudice reduction, I have been thinking about what the future of DEI-related research might look like in the context of these immense challenges.

For example, researchers might examine consequences of cuts to DEI initiatives, such as whether closing DEI offices and eliminating DEI positions affects enrollment, academic performance, or belonging in U.S. educational institutions, as researchers did after the U.S. Supreme Court banned affirmative action in universities. Researchers may examine the consequences of organizations’ decisions to voluntarily shutter DEI initiatives, many of which were created or expanded relatively recently after protests sparked by police shooting and killing Brianna Taylor in Louisville, KY, and a White police officer murdering George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN, both in 2020 (and other instances of police violence against Black, Brown, Indigenous, and Transgender people). Such data may help researchers and practitioners make the case for why DEI is needed, and which initiatives are especially impactful.

Addressing the anti-DEI movement also requires engaging with issues raised by anti-DEI critics. However, doing so may be tricky. For example, my own research suggests that many seemingly-race neutral criticisms of DEI are not independent of anti-Black racism. What constitutes a good-faith argument may, therefore, be difficult to discern.

It may also be difficult to address when allies seemingly embrace anti-DEI talking points. For example, Axios reported that some well-known Democratic officials, including Gavin Newsom, have denigrated the practice of stating personal pronouns in email signatures or twitter handles, maligned trans girls who play on girls’ sports teams, and generally panned DEI initiatives.

I hope that as a field we do not allow the anti-DEI movement to goad us into abolishing or otherwise denigrating successful initiatives that explicitly focus on identity, such as identity-based mentoring programs. Such initiatives are among the most successful at promoting belonging and the advancement of marginalized group members into leadership positions. Moreover, it is important to explicitly name and address remaining and often entrenched systemic biases. Although there is clearly a need to address the anti-DEI movement, whether and how researchers can do that without rendering ineffective empirically supported DEI initiatives seems worthy of study.

Most of all, I hope that in the face of the anti-DEI movement and the curtailment of civil liberties and civil rights, we, as scholars and individuals who respect the humanity of all, do not lose hope that a brighter and more inclusive future is possible. As Hamedani and colleagues (2024) note, the institutions that are currently perpetuating immense harm both in the U.S. and across the world are made of and by people, which means people can change the institutions and their direction. I hope that the potential future directions for our research may serve as inspiration to create that change.

back to menu