The United States’ relationship with diversity, equity and inclusion is not anomalous—it is as American as discrimination itself. Since Donald Trump’s first term in office, DEI has become a central political focus of his administration, matching previous efforts in principle but exceeding them in aggression. But Trump is not the first to attack diversity or inclusion, nor is this the first time America has struggled with reconciliation in the pursuit of equality.

As Jim Crow laws fed on the racial segregation that followed the gradual end of slavery and the rise of white backlash, Congress established initiatives to stabilize the country and its economy after the loss of free labor. Among these was the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, commonly known as the Freedmen’s Bureau. It offered support to formerly enslaved people—providing jobs, housing, health care, clothing and other necessities—though white Americans also benefited from its programs.

The Freedmen’s Bureau was shut down in 1872, with support from President Andrew Johnson, following mounting pressure from white Southerners who claimed it discriminated against them. This was despite evidence to the contrary. Later movements—including Reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under President Lyndon B. Johnson—sought to make the country more equitable by banning employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

As Jim Crow parasitically fed on the racial segregation that took root in the 19th century following the gradual end of slavery and a new era of whitelash, Congress attempted to stabilize the country and economy after the loss of free labor. The United States Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands was one such initiative, created to help formerly enslaved people with jobs, housing, healthcare, clothing, and other necessities—though those formerly enslaved were not the sole beneficiaries.

The Freedman’s Bureau was eventually shut down in 1872, just seven years after its creation, with the help of President Andrew Johnson, following mounting pressure from white Southerners and their belief that the Bureau discriminated against white people—despite evidence  that whites also benefited from its services. Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Movement, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson all aimed to make the United States more equitable by banning employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

While these were landmark achievements, they were not immune to backlash. Decades later, affirmative action policies that emerged from the civil rights era came under repeated legal and political attacks before being struck down in the summer of 2023. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admissions were discriminatory—a decision echoing the flawed logic that led to the dissolution of the Freedmen’s Bureau.

While affirmative action has helped minority groups gain access to institutions of prestige -especially Black students—it was never exclusive to any one group. Its broader intent was to diversify college campuses and workplaces and to curb admission discrimination against all nonwhite students. In fact, white women have historically been among the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action policies.

Under Trump’s renewed attack on DEI, schools and universities have become a prime target. His campaign promises have included eliminating the Department of Education, banning so-called “racial indoctrination” in K-12 schools, and removing Black history from curricula. Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs”—seeks to dismantle DEI practices and roll back LGBTQ+ protections. To avoid retaliation or the freezing of federal funds, many schools across the country have complied.

In Virginia, school districts were warned that if they did not cease DEI initiatives, they could lose state and federal funding. The Virginia Community College System passed a resolution effectively ending its DEI programs, followed by Virginia Tech, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the University of Virginia. Most recently, George Mason, Old Dominion, James Madison, and Christopher Newport University made changes removing DEI references and resources to comply with the executive order—moves praised by Governor Glenn Youngkin.

However, several institutions have resisted the administration’s pressure to eliminate diversity and inclusion programs that benefit not only marginalized students but entire campus communities. Radford University and Longwood University have continued their DEI efforts. Most notably, Harvard University publicly rejected the administration’s demands.

In a letter to faculty, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote, “No government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Former President Barack Obama praised Harvard’s stance, saying, “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions—rejecting an unlawful and harmful attempt to stifle academic freedom while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.”

In retaliation, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard. The university filed a lawsuit and co-signed a letter with more than 150 college and university presidents condemning the administration’s actions.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, a federal judge recently blocked Trump’s ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices outlined in the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter—effectively halting the administration’s effort to cut funding and programs, at least for now.

If history has any credibility, the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion cannot credibly be based on restoring values like individual dignity, hard work, or excellence, as the Trump administration suggests. Instead, it will likely lead to a series of legal battles—many of which are already underway.

To the privileged, equity and equality may feel oppressive—but that doesn’t make them so. It just means privilege is finally being checked. Initiatives like DEI and affirmative action move America forward by serving the diverse communities that make up this nation. Even DEI’s fiercest critics often benefit from inclusion initiatives. Yet America has a pattern of undermining progress whenever social programs are perceived to benefit Black Americans.

Trump’s anti-DEI orders mirror troubling chapters of the past—chapters he appears determined to revive, even if it means repeating America’s mistakes.

The writer is a communications strategist for the ACLU of Maryland.