We are living in unprecedented times – not only under the current American administration, but across the globe – in terms of restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education. From kindergarten through post-secondary, new policies restrict not only what topics can be discussed in the classroom (with particular constraints on gender, sexuality, and race-related information), but also classroom environments themselves. Though social psychological research consistently demonstrates the efficacy of environmental cues, such as rainbow flags, in signaling safety for members of marginalized groups, recent policies situate such displays as political, indoctrinating, and inappropriate for educational spaces.   

The parent’s rights movement has driven significant societal backlash against educational DEI, with involved parents advocating for full control over their children’s educational experiences, including the right for their children not to be exposed to DEI-related content. In our recent publication, ““I know what's best for my child”: A qualitative analysis of US cisgender-heterosexual and LGBTQ parents’ perspectives on inclusive education policies” we and our co-authors explored these dynamics to better understand how parents think about inclusive educational policies and displays. We selected ASAP as an outlet for the qualitative component of this work largely due to Flora’s longstanding appreciation for the journal, and in particular for its affinity for critical, mixed-methods and qualitative work that diverges from normative social psychological paradigms.  

A companion piece published in Social and Personality Psychology Science titled “Marginalized and advantaged parents’ perceptions of identity-safety cues in K-12 classrooms” discusses quantitative analyses from an experiment examining backlash against rainbow flags and BLM posters in K-12 classrooms. In our qualitative work, we were interested in fleshing out an understanding of backlash against DEI, with a particular emphasis on the role of parental identity (advantaged vs. marginalized) in shaping reactions.   

Our analyses revealed that cisgender-heterosexual parents, more so than LGBTQ+ parents, indicated less support for inclusive cues and policies in K-12 environments. Cisgender-heterosexual parents provided rationale that coincided with concerns from anti-DEI and Parents’ Bill of Rights legislation, with themes including concerns about student indoctrination and assuming predatory intent from instructors. Further, cisgender-heterosexual parents noted that schools should be apolitical and stick to “core subjects,” often likening inclusive imagery and topics to religious symbols and arguing that both should stay out of the classroom. Discourses of inclusivity as “age-inappropriate” were used to justify backlash – but, as we find in our quantitative work, the deemed age of appropriateness is an ever-moving goalpost that can always be invoked as needed to justify reactionary backlash.  

Our research scratches the surface of backlash to educational DEI among parents. Though we focus on backlash from advantaged parents, parents across identities indicated a desire to regulate their children’s exposure to DEI topics. These desires arise for differing reasons; for example, marginalized parents may be weary of institutionalized dominant-group narratives about their history and therefore wish to lead some conversations. We implore future research to examine not just when parent differences emerge, but how unique identity-based processes may lead to similar regulatory DEI support amongst parents.  

Interested in learning more? Check out the full ASAP article: 

Oswald, F., Pereira, Jorge, I., Garr-Schultz, A., & Chaney, K. E. (2025). “I know what's best for my child”: A qualitative analysis of US cisgender heterosexual and LGBTQ parents’ perspectives on inclusive education policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy: https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.70012