By Colette Córdova
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Friday, April 4, 2025, sided with the Trump administration in a 5-4 decision in a dispute over the Department of Education’s freeze of (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) DEI-related grants that Congress had already appropriated. As one who worked ten years in a planning department in a publicly funded, non-profit, and was designated to review the Ohio Revised Code for comment on new rules and its updates, I understand how rules and policy impact the funding, who gets it, and most importantly, how it impacts those we are there to serve.
As part of my job, I once went to a personnel training where the instructor stated it takes about a month for new staff to know which of the policies at work are followed and which are not. For example, if a workplace states that you can take your one-hour, lunch somewhere between 11 a.m. and return no later than 2 p.m., employees will see quickly who follows, and who does not, and if supervisors have more leeway than line workers.
Another time, I attended a fiscal training on policy presented by an MBA professor from Case Western who spoke to us about the implosion of the Enron corporation. She stated that Enron had all the proper policies, fiscal and otherwise in place, written by lawyers, including whistle-blower policies. The problem was that the employees did not follow the policies. Staff are in essence the policy. In any organization, private for-profit, non-profit, or governmental, the supervisors’ and other administrators’ jobs are to enforce the policies with staff. Initially, a Policy and Procedure Manual is given to new employees from human resources upon hire during the onboarding. Later as situations arise, their supervisor will let the new employees know what is expected and redirect if necessary. Being judicial as a supervisor can be tricky. Some supervisors may overlook behavior in some employees while enforcing it with others, thus there may be a climate of favoritism.
Policies are written to protect the entity and its workers. Healthy organizations will get input from the employees to improve policy and get buy-in on policy changes as well as from the board for final approval. The same goes for laws; or, it used to be the same for laws.
The President of Peru, Oscar R. Benavides, from 1933-1939, famously stated, “For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law.” For laws to be implemented consistently, they must be applied equitably, that is, they must be applied in the same way regardless of the person. Secondly, those in charge of enforcing the law are also subject to the same rules. Laws represent a set of values of a society reflecting their identity including an enforceable, structural system of beliefs. They are written by the legislature and enforced by the judicial branch. The executive branch (e.g., governor, president, etc.) can veto laws or write limited Executive Orders for governance. In a democracy, people must abide by the law, or chaos may ensue. At times laws are unfair to some limited groups of people who may advocate to change the law, like women and minorities advocating for voting rights.
We are living in tumultuous times where the rules, their interpretation, and their relevance are being questioned. Roe v. Wade (1973) was reversed with Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), affecting how substantive due process is viewed. More recently, in the affirmative action case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious college admissions, thereby gutting affirmative action.
After this decision, conservatives began dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in the workplace. According to Olatunde Johnson, a professor at Columbia Law School who studies discrimination and Constitutional law, there is no legal direct line between the college admissions ruling to the workplace. The Administration is extending this decision to workplace DEI programs. Harvard and UNC in the lawsuit are public institutions that receive federal funds and most employers are private. According to Johnson, those most vulnerable to being targeted are those that have a “racial classification as a goal.” Additionally, she states the 14th Amendment is at the heart of it all, based on getting rid of racial and gender bias. DEI is not a new concept but sprang out of the 1960s and 70s and the Fair Employment Revisions to create an inclusive workplace, avoid discrimination, and take proactive steps to help people work together.
As stated above, recently, on April 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sided with the Trump administration in a 5-4 decision in a dispute over the Department of Education’s freeze of DEI-related grants. SCOTUS halted funding from the Department of Education that was intended for two grant programs that targeted teacher shortages deemed as “high need” institutions, non-profits, and historically black colleges and universities along with those tribally controlled. The 65 million dollars was already appropriated by Congress. Eight states that were to receive the funds challenged the Department’s decision saying they had exceeded the powers for appropriations that Congress had already set for the programs. “The administration said it eliminated 104 of 109 grants because they ‘fund discriminatory practices–including in the form of DEI.’ The Department also sent letters to the recipients stating that their programs violated federal civil rights laws by discriminating based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics.” according to Nina Totenberg of NPR.
Organizations still need to be aware of civil rights for staff and not discriminate against minorities and women’s rights, including training for administrators. The 14th Amendment has not been revoked. Removing funding for training to prevent potential issues, as well as, teaching groups to get along in the workplace is counterproductive. What is really at the heart of DEI-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? Is it because some believe that others didn’t get the job due to merit when historically the statistics, policies, and laws have kept women and minorities out of high positions? The current administration is trying to rewrite and eliminate the facts of the history of people of color and women while minimizing their true history. Trying to wipe out 200 years of civil rights with unlawful Executive Orders should not be allowed. I would encourage those who agree to write to your representatives and resist these harmful policies at https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member. I would encourage organizations to band together to file against harmful actions taken against vulnerable populations who are still in need of funding for their programs. Facts matter. History matters. Policy matters. And, most importantly, people matter.