Regent’s Decision to Remove DEI Language Faces Pushback

By Colin A. Warren

A large group of protestors assembled outside the Fairbanks office of University of Alaska President Pat Pitney on Wednesday, February 26, in a show of opposition to the university’s decision to scrub all references to diversity, equity, and inclusion on the university’s website and other publications.

The decision came on February 21 when the Board of Regents voted 9 to 1 to force the removal of the words “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or DEI, and “affirmative action” from all content throughout the university system. 

The Regents’ motion says the action is to comply with President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders that universities receiving federal funds must remove DEI language and replace it with terms “consistent with the values of equal opportunity and equal access to all.” 

A federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s order, ruling that plaintiffs suing the government were likely to succeed based on arguments that the order would violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech. 

The Board of Regents’ motion stunned many UAF faculty, staff, and students who said removing DEI references from the university’s website, publications, and job and office titles is unconstitutional and infringes on academic freedom. 

Photo by Colin A. Warren

Concerned Nanooks “sign up” in protest at the Butovich Building.

UAF Chancellor Dan White stands by the Regents’ decision. 

In a campus-wide email on February 21, White said the decision “is not intended to diminish our commitment to the success of every student and employee. We at the University of Alaska Fairbanks care deeply about each and every member of our UAF community… support will help keep our focus on the education and well-being of our students.”

UAF leadership is clearly concerned about the possibility of losing federal funding if it doesn’t respond to Trump’s mandate.

Last year, more than a quarter of UAF’s total budget came from the federal government, around $150 million, or about 26% of the total.

Another 8%, or about $44 million, came from “indirect cost recovery” funds. That primarily consists of federal grants from the National Science Foundation or the National Institute of Health for things like laboratory costs or technicians’ salaries, where the money is recouped later. 

The Regents’ controversial decision also surprised the UAF community because the item was not listed on the meeting agenda, and public comment was not allowed. The only regent who voted against the motion was student Albiona Selimi. 

“I voted against this motion because I do not believe eliminating DEI serves the best interest of the students, faculty, staff, or a broader UA community,” Selimi told The Sun Star. “We are receiving confusing, flawed, and non-legally binding directives from the Executive Branch. This also reflects a concerning national trend of broad efforts to dismantle education and access to equitable resources.”

Selimi said she was speaking as a student, not in an official capacity as a regent. 

“I got the email that they had passed the motion, and I saw that it was 9-1, and that made me really angry because UAF, when I was thinking about coming here and doing research, it seemed like they were really committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that’s something that they talk about a lot. I feel really betrayed,” said Sophie Utterback, a junior working toward a degree in social work.

Photo by Anonymous Student

Sign taped to the Eilson Building on UAF campus February 22, 2025.

After a closed-door meeting with the Regents – a meeting that Selimi said she was not invited to attend – UA President Pat Pitney issued an all-campus email saying she supported the Board’s decision. 

President Pitney weighed in on the DEI controversy on February 24.

“The Board’s direction is driven by its responsibility to protect the university’s long-term financial and operational stability. Federal funding accounts for a significant portion of our budget, and we must ensure that we remain eligible for critical grants, contracts, and financial aid opportunities that benefit our students and research initiatives. The Board’s motion seeks to balance compliance with federal directives while maintaining our institutional values,” Pitney said.

Her rationale didn’t sit well with many students. 

“If I were in the positions of those people, despite all the risk associated with not being a coward, I would have stood up and said no because most of the people whose jobs are at risk would have wanted you to do that,” Gus Paul, a graduate student at UAF, told The Sun Star.

The UAF student body attacked the BOR motion. They put forth a letter as a Google Doc on February 25 for all students to sign, which highlights the problems many students find with the motion: “The BoR’ Statement and Motion, which mandates widespread and inherently unenforceable censorship, is a direct violation to our civil right to free speech and stifles the freedom of academic expression. The University of Alaska is built upon the free exchange of ideas, diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

It’s not just students pushing back on the university leadership’s position.

At the Gruening Building on the afternoon of February 25, the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program held an emergency meeting to draft a resolution pointing to what it sees as the unconstitutional nature of the decision to remove DEI references from the university and demanding that it be withdrawn.

The Resolution in Support of Free Speech and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion says the BOR motion violates its own policy regarding academic freedom and also the First Amendment. The resolution notes the harmful impact of the BOR motion on Indigenous Studies, Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, LGBTQIA+ individuals, African-Americans, Alaska Natives, Latine, and other marginalized people. It also says that the motion goes beyond the guidance put forth by the Trump Administration. 

Carol J. Gray, Assistant Professor of Public Law at UAF who helped draft the resolution, told The Sun Star that the letter from the Trump administration is not legally binding. Implementing a policy that requires erasure of words violates the First Amendment because it targets political speech, which has the highest degree of protection, and because it’s too vague since it also bans “other associated terms,” Gray said.

Gray clarified that she was speaking as an individual, not on behalf of her department or UAF. 

“Not only does the policy violate the faculty’s right to academic freedom, [but] it creates an atmosphere of fear and disillusionment among UAF students, faculty, and staff. It is antithetical to the values upon which our university is founded,” in Gray’s view.

Gray said a version of the resolution in opposition to the BOR motion has been approved by the Committee on the Status of Women, and they will introduce it to the Faculty Senate meeting on March 3.

An opinion piece published in The New York Times by University of Chicago law professor Sonja B. Starr on February 26 echoed Gray’s points. “The Department of Education can, of course, criticize speech it disagrees with. But the First Amendment does not allow the government to restrict speech based on such disagreement, including by conditioning funds.” She ends the article by telling schools to hold the line: “But schools should not cave to the Department of Education’s indefensible further demands…”

Reaction to Trump’s executive order on DEI has had mixed reactions at other universities.

The University of Montana is conducting a “compliance audit” in response to Trump’s directives. Syracuse University has scrubbed all DEI mentions from the website and removed a picture of a pride flag. The University of Colorado took down its DEI web page and posted a new page for an “Office of Collaboration.”

On February 25, the American Federation of Teachers union, the largest of its type in the nation, and the American Sociological Association sued the Trump administration for their anti-DEI directive.

Alaska State Representative Ashley Carrick, whose district includes UAF, told The Sun Star she’s frustrated with the motion.

“I am really concerned about the dangerous precedent that it sets for institutions of higher learning in general and the direct impacts that our student population and our faculty and staff at UAF across the whole system could see,” Carrick said.

She also noted that she has drafted legislation to add a faculty member to the Board of Regents. 

The Sun Star asked Chancellor White about possible violations of the First Amendment and the BOR’s own policy regarding academic freedom; he sidestepped the question.

“We reaffirm our commitment to maintaining a welcome environment…reaffirm our dedication to [being an] inclusive, non-discriminatory institution…The Board has a responsibility to look at the landscape and decide what’s in the best interest of the institution, and I think they’ve done that.”

Photo by Colin A. Warren

Not scared in the sunshine at the protest outside Pitney’s office.

Meanwhile, under a bluebird sky on Wednesday outside the UAF administrative Butrovich Building, which houses Pitney’s office, dozens of students and faculty, and concerned citizens gathered for a “Diversity Dance Party” advertised with a flyer reading, “LET’S SHOW THE BOARD OF REGENTS WE WON’T GO BACK!” Beats bounced around the parking lot with signs held high as people grooved.

They turned down the music for a moment to let a young person speak. They introduced themselves as Siqñiq Maupin in Iñupiaq first, then in English. They said they were a staff person at Rural Student Services – which focuses on Alaska Native education – and gave a short speech.

“I think we’re seeing the true colors of some of our leadership at UAF. And I’m sick of having people find diversity, equity, and inclusion as a trend, and acting as they truly believe in those things, and not seeing the real impact on people when we cut those services.”