A recent inquiry by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita into the University of Notre Dame’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has thrust the renowned Catholic institution into the epicenter of a contentious national debate, raising profound questions about academic freedom, the interpretation of civil rights laws, and the role of state government in the affairs of private universities. While Rokita’s office cites concerns over potential discriminatory practices and the implications for Notre Dame’s nonprofit status, the university staunchly defends its policies as integral to its Catholic mission and its commitment to fostering an inclusive global community. This standoff in Indiana is not an isolated incident but rather a reflection of a broader, often turbulent, re-evaluation of DEI in American higher education, occurring against a backdrop of shifting legal interpretations and intense political polarization.

On Thursday, May 15, 2025, Attorney General Rokita announced the official inquiry, dispatching a letter to Notre Dame President Rev. Robert Dowd. The letter details the state’s concerns that some of the university’s DEI programs, as outlined in public documents including its “2033 Strategic Framework,” may potentially contravene federal and state civil rights laws. Rokita’s office is particularly focused on whether these initiatives lead to differential treatment based on race or ethnicity in admissions, hiring, or other university programs. The inquiry also questions whether such practices align with the terms of Notre Dame’s nonprofit status under Indiana Code § 23-17-24-1.

“Indiana will not tolerate racial discrimination in education under the guise of DEI,” Rokita stated in a press release. “Fairness demands that every individual be judged on their merits, not the color of their skin. Notre Dame’s DEI policies raise troubling questions about whether, in its pursuit of DEI goals, the university may be crossing the clear line that Indiana law draws against racial discrimination. I am seeking answers.”

The Attorney General’s letter specifically requests a trove of documents and communications related to any modifications in Notre Dame’s hiring or admissions processes following the landmark 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. That ruling significantly curtailed the use of race as a direct factor in college admissions. Rokita’s office is also probing how the university defines and tracks “underrepresented groups,” its strategies for increasing Latino faculty, efforts to recruit more “underrepresented students,” and the nature of its multicultural recognition ceremonies for graduates. The university has been given until June 9, 2025, to respond.

This is not the first time Notre Dame’s diversity efforts have come under external scrutiny this year. In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Education included Notre Dame among approximately 50 universities targeted for an investigation into alleged racial preferences in educational programs, a move stemming from the current presidential administration’s focus on dismantling what it terms “illegal DEI practices.” That federal inquiry carries the potential threat of a loss of federal funding if violations are found.

In response to Rokita’s inquiry, a University of Notre Dame spokesperson reiterated the institution’s commitment to its foundational principles. “Notre Dame is a premier Catholic research university, and as such, seeks to serve and reflect the broader Catholic Church, which is the world’s most global, multicultural, and multilingual institution,” the spokesperson stated. “We do not engage in unlawful discrimination in our hiring or admissions processes and look to attract the best and brightest to our campus.” The university has consistently maintained that its DEI efforts are rooted in Catholic social teaching, which emphasizes the inherent dignity of every human person and the call to build a just and inclusive society.

The university’s “We Are All Notre Dame” initiative and its 2033 Strategic Framework articulate a vision of diversity and inclusion as central to its mission. These documents highlight a commitment to “respect the dignity of every person…regardless of race, nationality or ethnic group, religious tradition, gender, socioeconomic class, immigration status, sexual orientation, or anything else.” The framework outlines goals to enhance initiatives that contribute to diversity, equity, and inclusion, including the opening of a new Center for DEI in 2023, funded by a significant gift from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). This expansion occurred even as some institutions nationwide began to scale back or close DEI offices amidst legislative pressure.

The situation at Notre Dame mirrors a complex and often contentious national landscape. Across the United States, DEI programs in higher education have become a flashpoint. Proponents argue that these initiatives are crucial for redressing historical inequities, fostering a welcoming environment for students from all backgrounds, enhancing the educational experience through diverse perspectives, and preparing students for an increasingly diverse global workforce. Research from organizations like the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) has suggested that institutions with robust DEI structures often see higher retention and graduation rates, particularly among underrepresented students. A 2023 Pew Research study found that students of color are significantly more likely to experience discrimination on campus, highlighting the ongoing need for supportive initiatives. Furthermore, 76% of college-bound students report that campus diversity is an important factor in their decision-making, according to a 2024 Inside Higher Ed report.

However, critics, including many conservative lawmakers and activists, contend that some DEI programs amount to reverse discrimination, promote division, and compel adherence to specific ideological viewpoints, often at the expense of merit-based principles and free speech. They argue that focusing on group identity can lead to a lowering of standards and can stereotype individuals. The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in the Students for Fair Admissions case has emboldened these critiques, leading to a wave of legislative efforts in various states to restrict or eliminate DEI programs in public universities and, in some cases, to scrutinize their application in private institutions, especially those receiving state or federal funds or enjoying nonprofit tax benefits.

Data from 2024 and early 2025 indicate a shifting environment. Dozens of bills targeting DEI in higher education have been proposed across the nation, with several becoming law. In response, some universities have indeed closed or rebranded their DEI offices, while others are re-evaluating their strategies to ensure legal compliance while maintaining their commitment to inclusivity. This often involves shifting from race-conscious approaches to race-neutral strategies that focus on socioeconomic factors, geographic diversity, or overcoming specific adversities.

The legal terrain is still evolving. While the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision directly addressed race-conscious admissions at highly selective institutions, its broader implications for other DEI initiatives – such as scholarships, faculty hiring programs, and support services – remain a subject of ongoing legal debate and interpretation. Legal experts note that some programs previously considered acceptable may now be viewed as “vulnerable” to legal challenges, even if not explicitly ruled illegal. The ambiguity has led some institutions to act pre-emptively to avoid litigation or loss of funding. Recent court rulings, such as Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the bar for proving an adverse employment action, could also open new avenues for legal challenges to DEI initiatives if they are perceived as creating unfair disadvantages.

For institutions like Notre Dame, which are private and religiously affiliated, the situation presents unique complexities. While private universities generally have more autonomy than their public counterparts, their nonprofit status and receipt of federal funds (such as research grants and student financial aid) bring them within the purview of certain federal and state regulations, including anti-discrimination laws. The argument that race-conscious DEI initiatives might violate the terms of a university’s charitable purpose, as suggested by AG Rokita, adds another layer to the legal considerations.

The debate also touches upon the very definition of “merit” in higher education. Traditional metrics, often centered on standardized test scores and GPA, are increasingly being scrutinized for potential biases. Many DEI advocates argue for a more holistic view of merit that considers a student’s background, experiences, and potential to contribute to a diverse learning environment. Conversely, opponents argue that diluting traditional merit-based criteria in favor of demographic considerations can undermine academic excellence.

The national picture for higher education in 2025 shows institutions grappling with multiple pressures: declining enrollment in some sectors (though a slight overall uptick was noted in Fall 2024-2025), concerns about the perceived value of a college degree (with about a third of Americans expressing low confidence in higher education, citing concerns about political agendas and skills-teaching), and the rapid rise of AI in education. In this environment, the controversy over DEI adds another significant challenge. Funding for higher education is also a critical factor, with public and private funding bodies increasingly requiring evidence of DEI commitments in grant proposals, even as political winds shift.

As Notre Dame prepares its response to Attorney General Rokita, the outcome of this inquiry will be closely watched, not just in Indiana but across the country. It could set a precedent for how states interact with private universities on matters of DEI and how religiously affiliated institutions navigate the complex interplay of their mission, civil rights laws, and evolving societal expectations. The core of the issue revolves around finding a path that ensures equal opportunity and non-discrimination while allowing universities to foster the diverse and inclusive communities they believe are essential for academic excellence and societal progress in the 21st century. The resolution will likely require careful legal navigation, transparent dialogue, and a re-examination of how institutions can achieve their diversity goals in a manner consistent with both their values and the law of the land.