Last Updated on July 13, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke

In a sweeping transformation, several of Harvard University’s graduate schools have begun rebranding their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, replacing them with programs emphasizing “pluralism” and “community engagement.” This shift, unfolding over the past two weeks, reflects a broader national conversation about the role of DEI in higher education, spurred by recent federal policy changes under the Trump administration. While some view this as a pragmatic adaptation to a changing political landscape, others argue it risks diluting Harvard’s commitment to fostering inclusive academic environments.

A New Era for Harvard’s Graduate Schools

Harvard’s graduate schools, including the Harvard Business School (HBS), the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE), and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH), have quietly restructured their DEI offices. Websites once dedicated to supporting minority, women, and LGBTQ students have been revamped or removed entirely, with new language focusing on “community and culture” and “viewpoint diversity.” For instance, HBS has eliminated references to diversity and inclusion from staff titles, reassigning personnel to roles centered on “community and culture.” Similarly, HSPH’s former diversity office now operates under a new banner of “constructive engagement,” with Dean Andrea A. Baccarelli announcing a working group to explore whether the school sufficiently fosters ideological diversity.

This pivot comes in response to federal pressure, as the Trump administration has labeled many DEI programs as discriminatory and potentially illegal. A January 20, 2025, executive order directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI initiatives, prompting universities nationwide to reassess their programs to maintain eligibility for federal funding. Harvard, which has faced the loss of nearly $3 billion in federal grants since April 2025, is navigating a delicate balance between compliance and maintaining its institutional values.

The National Context: A Polarized Debate

The changes at Harvard reflect a broader national trend. Since the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious admissions, colleges and universities have faced increasing scrutiny over DEI initiatives. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has ruled that race-based considerations in admissions, hiring, and scholarships violate federal law, amplifying pressure on institutions like Harvard. Across the country, universities such as the University of North Carolina and the University of Akron have scaled back DEI programs, with some eliminating diversity-related coursework or events like the “Rethinking Race” forum.

Data from the Chronicle of Higher Education indicates that at least 20 states have introduced or passed legislation restricting DEI programs in public colleges since 2023. These laws often prohibit mandatory diversity training, diversity statements in hiring, or race-based considerations in admissions. The Trump administration’s recent moves, including a directive requiring K-12 schools and universities to certify compliance with civil rights laws by ending DEI practices, have further escalated the debate. As of April 2025, the Education Department reported that 85% of public universities receiving federal funds had submitted compliance certifications, though enforcement remains inconsistent.

Harvard’s Strategic Shift: Pluralism Over DEI

At Harvard, the transition from DEI to pluralism is not merely semantic. The university has removed requirements for diversity statements in faculty hiring and withdrawn support for affinity group Commencement celebrations, signaling a broader retreat from race- and identity-focused programs. Instead, Harvard is emphasizing “pluralism” and “mutual respect,” terms that align with the Trump administration’s push for ideological diversity but also resonate with the university’s efforts to bridge divides over contentious issues, such as the Israel-Gaza conflict.

For example, an HSPH website that once championed “the power of diversity” now highlights “the power of pluralism.” Similarly, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) announced on July 10, 2025, the creation of an Office for Academic Culture and Community, replacing its diversity office. This new office aims to “break down silos” and foster an environment where all community members feel “connected, supported, and empowered,” according to FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra.

The shift has been met with mixed reactions. A recent FAS survey revealed that 55% of faculty believe Harvard should prioritize DEI principles, while 27% disagree, highlighting a divide within the university. Students, too, are grappling with the changes. “It feels like the university is caving to external pressure,” said Maya Johnson, a second-year Ph.D. student at HGSE. “Pluralism sounds nice, but will it address the systemic barriers that DEI programs were designed to tackle?”

Financial Pressures and Institutional Challenges

Harvard’s rebranding efforts come amid significant financial challenges. The university has faced a hiring freeze across all faculty and staff positions since March 2025, following threats of federal funding cuts. The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) announced in March that it would reject all waitlisted Ph.D. candidates due to financial uncertainty, a decision that affected over 200 applicants. Additionally, Harvard’s decision to remove more than 800 stipend-funded students from its graduate student union, citing a 2023 National Labor Relations Board ruling, has sparked concerns about labor rights and cost-cutting measures.

The financial strain is compounded by a proposed 8% endowment tax, which could reduce Harvard’s annual returns by an estimated $400 million. With an endowment valued at $50.7 billion as of June 2024, Harvard remains one of the wealthiest universities in the world, but administrators argue that these measures are necessary to safeguard long-term stability. “We’re trying to protect our core mission while navigating an unprecedented funding landscape,” a Harvard spokesperson said, though they declined to comment on specific DEI changes.

Voices of Concern and Optimism

Critics argue that Harvard’s pivot risks undermining decades of progress in fostering inclusive academic environments. Gerald Griggs, president of the NAACP in Georgia, recently described similar DEI rollbacks at Georgia Tech as “an attempt to erase people’s identities.” At Harvard, some faculty and students fear that the rebranding dilutes the university’s commitment to addressing systemic inequities. “Pluralism is a vague term,” said Professor Elena Martinez, a sociologist at HGSE. “It doesn’t explicitly address the structural issues that DEI programs were designed to confront, like underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic students in graduate programs.”

Data supports these concerns. In 2024, Black students made up just 5.2% of Harvard’s graduate student population, compared to 13.4% of the U.S. population, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Hispanic students, who represent 18.7% of the U.S. population, accounted for only 7.8% of Harvard’s graduate enrollment. Without targeted DEI programs, critics argue, these gaps may widen.

Conversely, some see the shift as an opportunity to reframe inclusivity in a less divisive way. “The term ‘DEI’ has become politically charged,” said Professor David Kim, a political scientist at HSPH. “By focusing on pluralism, Harvard can promote dialogue across ideological lines while still supporting underrepresented groups.” Kim points to the university’s continued financial aid commitments and mentorship programs as evidence that inclusivity remains a priority, albeit under a new framework.

Looking Ahead: A Balancing Act

As Harvard navigates this transition, questions remain about how its new approach will translate into practice. The university has promised replacement programs, but details are sparse. For instance, the Office for Academic Culture and Community at FAS has yet to outline specific initiatives, leaving students and faculty uncertain about its impact. Meanwhile, the broader academic community is watching closely, as Harvard’s actions could set a precedent for other elite institutions.

The debate over DEI is unlikely to subside. A 2024 report by the American Association of University Professors found that 62% of faculty at top-tier universities believe DEI programs are essential for fostering equitable academic environments, yet 48% of administrators report feeling pressure to scale back these initiatives due to political and legal challenges. As Harvard rebrands its programs, it faces the challenge of maintaining its commitment to inclusivity while complying with federal mandates.

For students like Maya Johnson, the stakes are personal. “I came to Harvard because I believed it was a place that valued diversity,” she said. “I hope this new focus on pluralism doesn’t mean we’re abandoning that vision.” As the university charts its path forward, it must balance external pressures with its internal mission to pursue “veritas”—truth—through an inclusive and equitable lens.