When UTD closed its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and then one semester later closed its replacement — the Office of Campus Resources and Support — in response to Senate Bill 17, it completely erased important mentorship and affinity programs for students. That erasure meant UTD chose silent compliance with the anti-DEI bill, even as universities nationwide defended inclusion against political attacks. Instead of vigorously standing with students against exclusion, the university has let politics dictate what happens to the spaces that once brightened campus with deeper equity. UTD’s reneging on inclusion risks establishing exclusion as normal on campus and permanently weakening future students’ sense of belonging.
UTD’s DEI office provided mentorship to international students, first-generation college students and queer students, helped organize career readiness programs for underrepresented population groups, hosted cultural events that created belonging and provided trainings that helped faculty create classrooms with safe, accepting environments for all. But by the end of spring 2024, all these programs were completely dismantled.
Supporters of SB 17 insisted that universities were eliminating “division” by shuttering DEI programs. But for students of color, LGBTQ+ students and those going through the entire collegiate process for the first time among their family, the so-called “division” was in fact their way of finding connection. I remember walking into one of these events my freshman year, naturally very unsure, incredibly nervous, but I left with three Instagram contacts, a couple chess buddies and other friends who made UTD feel like home. That experience was just a piece of the larger puzzle, but my journey here at UTD would feel incomplete without it.
But for students of color, LGBTQ+ students and those going through the entire collegiate process for the first time among their family, the so-called “division” was in fact their way of finding connection.
Closing the DEI and CRS offices meant far more than just changing the nameplate of important programs like other institutions, namely Harvard University and UMD College Park, did. It meant eliminating positions dedicated to student support, ending most affinity programs and narrowing the criteria through which inclusion was pursued. Staff who specialized in cultural outreach and student belonging were either reassigned or fired. For students who entered UTD hoping to find not only an education but also a community that understood their lived experiences, their support system was gone overnight.
These resources were never some sort of political luxury. They were life-changing programs that gave those that need help equal opportunity. Without these programs, UTD’s 2013 recognition as one of the U.S.’s most diverse campuses and its claim to serve a truly diverse student body loses credibility.
Without these programs, UTD’s 2013 recognition as one of the U.S.’s most diverse campuses and its claim to serve a truly diverse student body loses credibility.
If UTD’s quiet compliance represents one face of the coin, George Mason University president Gregory Washington’s response to anti-DEI pressure represents the other. When President Donald Trump escalated political attacks on DEI and threatened universities that maintained such programs, Washington did not retreat. Instead, he spoke publicly about the importance of inclusion, especially considering the U.S.’s current political climate. He stated these programs “are designed to expand opportunity and build inclusive excellence — not to exclude or advantage any group unlawfully.” He made clear that his university would not sacrifice its values to appease political pressure, even when that pressure comes from a powerful figure such as Trump. Washington showed us all that universities can acknowledge political realities while still affirming their commitments, while UTD, by contrast, has been silent. In its silence, it has conveyed that the safest route is to surrender to those in power.
While noncompliance with state law could jeopardize funding and expose the university to lawsuits, giving up on students was never mandatory. The administration could have spoken clearly about its values. It could have explained the harm of losing DEI programs to those above. It could have listed out multiple lawful alternatives, or at the very least reassured students that belonging remains the university’s priority. Instead, after trying the OCRS for one semester, UTD buckled to its own fears before spring 2024 ended and over-complied beyond what the law demanded.
The absence of any sort of support tells students that their identities are expendable and their needs are too politically inconvenient to acknowledge. Students have now been left with nothing, which has forced student organizations to make their own low-cost alternatives to what ODEI once provided. And what makes the whole situation even worse is that OCRS’ elimination was a direct reversal on former UTD President Richard Benson’s promises that nobody at UTD’s DEI office would lose their jobs.
What makes the whole situation even worse is that OCRS’ elimination was a direct reversal on former UTD President Richard Benson’s promises that nobody at UTD’s DEI office would lose their jobs.
Universities are not merely extensions of the state government; they possess the powers to create communities of growth and learning. By refusing to speak, UTD has completely abandoned the opportunity to fight the federal government and show that education and DEI policies can coexist even under political constraints. The DEI ban is law, and universities in Texas must comply, but compliance does not have to mean complete resignation. UTD and its community still have multiple choices.
Change never starts at the top, so students and faculty should send an email to acluinfo@aclutx.org for advocacy and litigation help so that silence does not become a statewide default. The key here is that the gray area lies in reframing, not removing. Universities cannot legally run DEI offices in Texas, but they can technically fund mentorship programs through student success centers, host cultural awareness events and add these into first-year seminars or support voluntary identity and interest-based affinity groups, perhaps under general budgets designated to Student Affairs. These initiatives could still technically avoid banned terminology while preserving the inclusive message and goals. The laws, however, will only change if the politics in Austin begin to change, and students and alumni must recognize that their votes in state elections will determine whether Texas remains hostile to DEI or considers reopening spaces for it.
Students and alumni must recognize that their votes in state elections will determine whether Texas remains hostile to DEI or considers reopening spaces for it.
For UTD students, the impact of losing DEI programs is monumental. Students of color, LGBTQ+ students, first-generation students and so many other groups all face higher barriers without institutional support. DEI, in most instances, makes the difference between surviving and thriving in college. The UTD community cannot accept quiet compliance as the default. If Washington could respond to Trump’s attacks with courage and clarity, then UTD can at the very least respond to Austin with honesty. Silence is surrender. And our campus and its students deserve better than an administration that surrenders.