In short: higher education in the US has undergone a significant shift in the past twelve months. Diversity support programs started closing one after another on dozens of campuses. Even the oldest Ivy League universities and major state universities, including Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and about three hundred other colleges and universities across the country, had to shut them down. DEI offices ceased to exist as separate structures, corresponding positions were removed from payrolls, and previous points were eliminated from faculty hiring procedures. The logic of selecting applicants has also changed. For families whose children are in school and plan to enter college in a few years, it is important to understand the current landscape of American higher education. Let's break it down step by step.
What is DEI and why was it needed?
All three letters are the initial letters of the English words: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. In Russian, they are usually translated as raznoobrazie (diversity), spravedlivost' (equity), and inklyuzivnost' (inclusion). Starting around 2010, separate departments began to be established under this name in large American universities. Their task was formulated as follows: to ensure that individuals who historically had fewer opportunities to attend university were noticeably present within the campus walls. This included students from racial and ethnic minorities, women (with a particular emphasis on STEM faculties), people from the LGBTQ+ community, individuals with disabilities, and those from low-income families.
What was the result of this in a real admissions committee? The applicant's file was reviewed taking into account their racial and social background, and academic performance was assessed against this backdrop. In turn, candidates for teaching positions were expected to submit a diversity statement: a document in which the author outlines their own position on inclusive approaches in their work. Alongside the regular competition, universities had separate scholarship streams tailored to specific categories of applicants.
This system had its defenders: their main argument was that such steps partially compensate for historically unequal access to education for those who had a harder time getting into university. Opponents saw the opposite: a forced ideological framework that damaged academic criteria. The discussion went on for years and remained largely theoretical until 2025 arrived.
What suddenly changed in 2025?
January 2025 was marked by presidential decrees on a single course. Their essence boiled down to a simple formula: the way DEI mechanisms operate contradicts Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. The argument was that in both the selection of professorships and the admission of applicants, race was among the evaluated parameters within these mechanisms. A month later, in February, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to universities titled Dear Colleague Letter. The message was crystal clear: universities that did not shut down such programs risked losing federal funding. These are enormous sums for universities: the largest ones receive billions, while typical ones receive tens and hundreds of millions annually.
The university world reacted almost immediately. Departments responsible for DEI began to be disbanded. Old wording and terminology were removed from university websites, and new names were invented for existing support programs. The publication The Chronicle of Higher Education, which tracked these processes, counted over three hundred educational institutions where DEI initiatives were either completely eliminated or significantly reshaped within a few months.
Do all universities do that, or only some?
The list turned out to be long and quite representative. Among the private «stars» were Harvard and Stanford, Northwestern and Vanderbilt, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania (an Ivy League member). The public sector is represented by the flagship of the Michigan system in Ann Arbor, Ohio State University, Purdue, and Rutgers. The entire University of California system, including UCLA, is mentioned separately. Some of those listed did not stop at the formal closure of offices: separate graduation ceremonies based on ethnicity were also discontinued, cultural centers on campuses were shut down, and former support divisions were given more neutral names.
The states themselves acted in parallel. By September 2025, twenty-two states had enacted their own anti-DEI laws. In other words, public universities in these territories are obligated to comply primarily with local regulations, regardless of what happens on the federal stage.
If the court overturned the directive, why aren't the programs coming back
This is perhaps the most interesting plot twist. In February 2026, a federal court in New Hampshire ruled that the Dear Colleague Letter had no legal force, and the U.S. Department of Education was forced to withdraw the document. From a legal standpoint, universities are no longer obligated to follow its provisions. Logically, one would expect the opposite to happen: the reinstatement of programs, the reopening of closed offices, and the return of employees to their previous positions.
But this is not happening, and there are several reasons for this. The main one: the White House continues to pursue the dismantling of DEI through other tools, primarily through the threat of withholding federal grants. No one wants to lose billions of dollars over the restoration of an already closed office. In addition, 22 states have their own laws that have not been repealed. Finally, the winding-down process itself was complex and expensive: employees were dismissed, cases were reviewed, and budgets were reallocated. No one is in a hurry to relaunch everything until the legal situation is completely clarified.
What does that mean for my child's family?
The main practical consequence concerns college admissions criteria. They are becoming more meritocratic: academic achievements, test scores (SAT, ACT), competition victories, extracurricular activities, and teacher recommendations are taking precedence. Racial and ethnic preferences have either disappeared entirely or been radically reduced. Scholarship programs are also being restructured: fewer criteria based on group affiliation, more based on academic performance.
What exactly remains in the family's hands is Preserving the Russian language as a strength for applicants. Bilingualism works under any selection criteria and is independent of political changes in the admissions system. A bilingual graduate with proficient writing and fluent speech has a real advantage over a monolingual peer.
The educational environment in the US is currently in a phase of reassembly. The basic strategy for parents remains unchanged: Invest in child development regardless of external programs, because one's own academic strength and language proficiency work in any political regime.
01 Did this only affect private universities?
No, both public and private. Public universities in 22 states are additionally subject to local anti-DEI laws, so the changes there are often even stricter than in private universities.
02 If a child is admitted in 5-10 years, will the situation remain the same?
Predicting with accuracy is difficult. Much depends on the policies of future administrations, Supreme Court decisions, and individual state laws. But even with a possible reversal, academic achievement and language proficiency remain valuable in any scenario.
03 How will the changes affect children from Russian-speaking families?
Children from Russian-speaking immigrant families did not formally belong to groups prioritized by the DEI system, so they will not suffer direct harm from the closure of programs. Rather, the opposite is true: the shift to meritocratic admission criteria benefits families that traditionally invest in their children's academic preparation.
