There is lots of attention around the president’s desire to dismantle the education department and its Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI). On March 20, Donald Trump signed the currently unnumbered executive order as a means of taking all the necessary steps to do so. The Trump administration’s primary argument is that the Department of Education is responsible for the encroachment of radical ideologies like DEI, which they believe are hypocritically divisive and discriminatory. Although the President hasn’t been able to enforce these policies to the degree he sees fit, there are efforts being put towards these ideas currently in the works. The Department of Education is acting in support or at least complacency with these new rules around what schools are and aren’t allowed to do in regards to these new anti-DEI policies.
At a school in Idaho’s West Ada School District, a poster reading “Everyone is welcome” with an illustration of hands in a variety of skin tones was ordered to be taken down to avoid any future controversy. The request was in response to Trump’s order with his new Ending Radical Indoctrination policy, which requires schools to cease anything that gives the impression of inclusive racial, sexual, gendered or ‘anti-American’ topics. LOHS could easily experience this too with its diversity-focused classes, posters and celebrations that represent our school’s core values.
This raises a question to LOHS: If we were asked to take away inclusive aspects of our school, similar to the school in West Ada to appeal to these new regulations, are we helping to send the message that inclusivity is a debatable topic? And if we refuse, would the potential consequences of going against these forming laws be worth it? This is a contingency to plan for. This concern may seem distant because it has not directly impacted many people, especially in our community yet, but that doesn’t mean it will just go away if ignored. There is a very real possibility that the same alleged reprimands and moral conflicts other schools are facing could infiltrate ours.
Teachers already can’t express much of their opinions on the political happenings of the world. This is only becoming more strict now that the Department of Education created the “End DEI” portal where anyone can report employees from public schools for violating these new policies. The efforts behind these developments could be well-intentioned and beneficial if the message being reported wasn’t wrongfully misinterpreted to be a form of reverse discrimination. However, this is a thin line that makes it harder to discern its fringes. It should also be taken into consideration that the initial political agendas that fueled the dismantling of the Department of Education and DEI overshadows genuine concern for fairness and meritocracy.
I find it erroneous that it’s considered debatable to communicate your belief that all people deserve representation and equal opportunities, or at least feel welcome to exist in a classroom. Multiple laws and amendments in the constitution are based on providing these needs as such, so why is it considered unconstitutional by some to uphold them? When we utilize the true purpose of DEI we give merit to people who have earned it, not because they think they’re special. Typically, these classified groups don’t get credit when it’s due because of the prejudice they face for their unalterable aspects.
The issue claimed and magnified by Trump and his administration directly contradicts why DEI is helpful for all. Its goal is to limit the defective partisanship system that affects people in society, majority or minority. The reason why the focus is currently on the latter is because they are often more affected by this dilemma than the people that have systematically had more power for longer. This concern is valid. The people on top want to keep what they have, even at the expense of others, especially when it’s a possibility that it could be threatened. If we fully take down DEI, a hypothetical switch in the power dynamic would not have the opportunity to be rectified by this program. There would be no commitment to protecting impartiality by looking objectively at everyone’s worth to base that earning on providing resources.
DEI is a mechanism to fix a systemic problem. Not make a new one. It’s a difficult situation to stand by this for schools like LOHS, especially in the face of authority figures mandating rules against them. With how vague the changes being made by Trump’s administration are, there isn’t much we can do yet in response other than spread awareness on the misconceptions of DEI. Doing this will hopefully avoid further polarization of politics and the pitting of people against each other. As a country, state, community and school, it is pivotal to continue an unwavering push towards an equitable future for all instead of letting the fear of losing power mandate our actions.
