Harvard University Renames Its Diversity Office
The university is currently entangled in a conflict with the Trump administration after it refused requests to act against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with authorities cutting off funding and Harvard filing a lawsuit against the government.
The name change is 'effective immediately,' Sherri Ann Charleston, who oversees the office, wrote in the letter. Charleston said the office will redouble efforts to ensure it provides a forum for Harvard schools to share best practices on building a culture of belonging for 'all members' at the university.
It also plans to expand and support programs that give community members 'greater opportunities to engage across difference.' Another objective is to boost support for low-income and first-generation students.
'In the weeks and months ahead, we will take steps to make this change concrete and to work with all of Harvard's schools and units to implement these vital objectives, including shared efforts to reexamine and reshape the missions and programs of offices across the university,' the letter said.
'Much of that work is already underway in our schools.'
Related Stories
4/29/2025
4/26/2025
While Charleston lists her position in the letter as 'Chief Community and Campus Life Officer,' she continues to be
The Education Department's task force on anti-Semitism
The funding freeze was implemented after Harvard refused to comply with certain demands made by the General Services Administration, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The demands include eliminating DEI initiatives, banning the use of face coverings during campus protests, and reforming hiring and admission processes to prioritize merit over race or gender criteria.
On April 11, the agencies made more demands, including screening out applicants during the international admissions process who seemed to be 'hostile to American values' or 'supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.'
Harvard refused to comply, with the university's resident, Alan Garber, saying in an open letter on April 14 that the institution 'will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.'
On April 21, Harvard
'Before taking punitive action, the law requires that the federal government engage with us about the ways we are fighting and will continue to fight antisemitism. Instead, the government's April 11 demands seek to control whom we hire and what we teach,' he said.
On April 17, the Department of Education asked Harvard to submit a list of its foreign funders after finding that the university's foreign funding disclosures were 'incomplete and inaccurate.'
Racial Discrimination Probe
The Education Department said in an April 28
The probe follows reports that the Law Review used 'race-based criteria' in its article selection process and journal membership, which would violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
'Title VI's demands are clear: recipients of federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin,' Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in the statement.
'The Trump Administration will not allow Harvard, or any other recipients of federal funds, to trample on anyone's civil rights.'
One of the reported instances of discrimination involved a journal editor saying it was 'concerning' that most people who wanted to respond to an article regarding police reform were white men, the statement said.
Another journal editor reportedly suggested that an article 'should be subject to expedited review because the author was a minority,' according to the statement.
Commenting on the investigation, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in an April 29
Other universities are also feeling the heat from federal authorities over discriminatory practices or policies.
On April 28, the Education Department
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
a few seconds ago
- Washington Post
To stop the gerrymandering wars we need peace without victory
Fred Bauer is author of the newsletter 'Rounding Up.' The escalating redistricting war is the logical extension of the take-no-prisoners struggle for power in American politics. Because power is so closely divided in Washington, each side wants to flex every ounce of political muscle it has; when control of the House teeters on a knife's edge, even a marginal advantage has a major payoff.
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
5 things to know for August 11: Gaza, DC, National Guard, Texas redistricting, Extreme weather
5 Things Donald Trump The Middle East Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink Follow When an extraterrestrial rock fell to Earth in June, it caused a sonic boom in the Southeast before crashing through the roof of a home in Georgia. Now, researchers say the McDonough Meteorite is older than our planet. Here's what else you need to know to get up to speed and on with your day. The Israeli military targeted and killed Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al-Sharif late Sunday after accusing him of leading a Hamas cell. Al-Sharif, a prominent 28-year-old journalist who covered the war from inside Gaza, previously denied the allegation. Six other people, including at least three additional Al Jazeera journalists, were killed in the attack, which occurred near the entrance of Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Hospital director Dr. Mohammad Abu Salmiya said the journalists were in a tent marked with a 'Press' sign. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 186 journalists have been killed since the beginning of the war nearly two years ago. Of those, at least 178 were 'Palestinians killed by Israel.' Minutes before he was killed, Al-Sharif posted on social media: 'If this madness does not end, Gaza will be reduced to ruins, its people's voices silenced, their faces erased — and history will remember you as silent witnesses to a genocide you chose not to stop.' President Donald Trump is expected to hold a press conference later this morning to announce plans to curb violent crime in Washington, DC. Since February, Trump has frequently threatened a federal takeover of the nation's capital because, as he remarked on his social media site, 'Crime in Washington, DC, is totally out of control.' However, according to preliminary data from DC police, this year's crime numbers are lower than last year's. Trump also said he would make the Capital safer and more beautiful than ever before, and that the homeless population would have to immediately move out. 'We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,' Trump posted on Sunday. He didn't say what services were going to be provided or where the homeless population would be taken. The legal battle over President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to quell protests in Los Angeles heads to court today. In June, hundreds of people held demonstrations in the city to protest immigration raids by ICE. In response, Trump deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass. Now, a judge will determine if Trump violated a 147-year-old law that allows the president to federalize the Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can't enforce US laws. Newsom's attorneys say Trump illegally made an 'unprecedented power grab' and violated the Constitution by overruling local authorities to send in the military. Trump's lawyers said the National Guard troops were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel and didn't engage in any law enforcement activities. Texas Republicans' recent effort to redraw the state's congressional districts in the middle of the decade has so far been stymied by more than 50 quorum-breaking Democratic House members who left the state. The GOP's proposed map could potentially eliminate five Democratic US House seats ahead of the 2026 midterms. Such a partisan change may also have repercussions in Washington, DC, where House Republicans hold a razor-thin majority. Conservative leaders have vowed to punish, arrest and remove the Democratic lawmakers from office. Democrats say they will not allow the new maps to advance in the legislature, despite Republican threats. So, how will this political standoff shake out? Here are four possible outcomes. More than 10 million people across the Midwest remain under flood alerts this morning as heavy rains continue to fall. Milwaukee was hit particularly hard by storms over the weekend and is on track to break its daily rainfall record of 14.5 inches. On Sunday, Milwaukee County declared a state of emergency as the Milwaukee River crested to a historic 11.19 feet. Flash floods swamped roads and stranded vehicles, prompting first responders to make dozens of water rescues. Even the Wisconsin State Fair had to shut down early because heavy rains flooded the fairgrounds. The severe weather is part of the same storm system that brought wind gusts of more than 80 mph to Nebraska on Saturday and killed one person. Hundreds of inmates at the Nebraska State Penitentiary also had to be relocated after the storms damaged two housing units, the AP reported. GET '5 THINGS' IN YOUR INBOX If your day doesn't start until you're up to speed on the latest headlines, then let us introduce you to your new favorite morning fix. Sign up here for the '5 Things' newsletter. A volunteer found the dinosaur tracks while removing debris in central Texas. And apparently, it may be a part of the reason the Appalachian Mountains are still standing tall. The horror movie grossed over $42 million domestically and topped the box office over the weekend. The 19-year-old NASCAR Xfinity Series points leader was celebrating another win on Saturday when he slipped off his car and broke his collarbone. Her first episode will feature a sit-down with Vice President JD Vance. $9 millionThat's how much Louisiana authorities have agreed to pay to a man who was partially paralyzed from the waist down after a trooper shot him in the back during a 2018 traffic stop and then falsely reported it as a Taser discharge. 'There are people who dare, who dream, and who lead others to places we would not go on our own. Jim Lovell, who for a long while had gone farther into space and for longer than any other person of our planet, was that kind of guy.' — Actor Tom Hanks Hanks shared this tribute on his Instagram page about the astronaut who died on Aug. 7. Hanks played Lovell in the 1995 Oscar-winning movie 'Apollo 13.' 🌤️ Check your local forecast to see what you can expect. 'The Situation Room' with CNN's Wolf Blitzer celebrates 20 years on the air. Today's edition of 5 Things AM was edited and produced by CNN's Andrew Torgan.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
The Behavioral Economics Battle Lurking In EPA's Endangerment Finding Repeal
The EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding was the agency's formal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Ever since, it has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate regulations. Without this finding, EPA lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration's EPA has now proposed to repeal the Endangerment Finding, along with the agency's greenhouse gas standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles that depend on it. In the agency's announcement, EPA justifies the repeal by citing the severe economic burdens of its existing rules, including over $1 trillion in compliance costs. As the agency moves to dismantle the Endangerment Finding, another battleground has opened up that has received less attention. That fight is about whether regulators should trust consumers' preferences or instead attempt to 'correct' them. The outcome of this debate could swing the measured benefits of climate rules by trillions of dollars. The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis Because repealing the Endangerment Finding would also remove the legal basis for existing greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, EPA is required under longstanding executive orders to analyze the economic effects of that policy change. This requires the agency to tally the costs avoided and the benefits forgone from the action. To comply with these requirements, agencies prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) whenever a rule or policy change is expected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. RIA is a framework for identifying the expected consequences of a regulation, quantifying them where possible, and monetizing them when the data and methods allow. In the case of the Endangerment Finding repeal, that means examining how vehicle technology, fuel use, air pollution, and consumer welfare would differ with and without the greenhouse gas standards, and then converting any differences into dollar terms. In its draft RIA for the repeal action, EPA's core engineering-model estimate finds the repeal would yield net costs of roughly $260 billion (at a 3% discount rate, over the years 2027 to 2055). This traditional government approach counts fuel savings as a benefit to consumers, making the repeal appear costly since those savings would be lost. However, Appendix B of the RIA includes an alternative 'revealed preference' analysis that estimates net benefits of the repeal ranging from $3.05 trillion to $8.18 trillion. This set of estimates assumes that if consumers aren't voluntarily choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, then forcing them to do so through regulations actually harms them. Any estimated savings, in that case, were pure fiction. By extension, so were many of the benefits of regulation. The Assumption of Revealed Preference Cost-benefit analysis aims to tally up the monetized social gains and losses from a policy. An economist adds up the 'private benefits' to particular individuals to arrive at a cumulative "social benefit" estimate for society as a whole. 'Revealed preference' is a concept central to this endeavor. By examining what people buy and how much they are willing to pay for different items and features, economists can estimate dollar values for different types of benefits and costs. This approach assumes that the observed willingness to pay of an individual reflects the value of a benefit to that person. This method has a major advantage in that it respects people's choices and doesn't involve analysts judging whether people's choices are good or bad; they merely accept that the choice made was what the individual preferred. The downside of this approach is that people don't always make decisions that accord with their own interests, or that of society. Fuel Savings Violate Revealed Preference For years, agencies writing fuel economy and energy efficiency rules have counted fuel and energy savings as a benefit of those rulemakings. When a consumer buys a more fuel-efficient car or appliance, they save money on gas or their utility bill. The government counts that as a significant benefit of a regulatory action phasing out less-efficient devices. This approach is valid if consumers genuinely underappreciate those savings when they buy a car or appliance. But if they already weigh fuel economy and energy efficiency against other attributes of a product before making a purchase, the savings are not a windfall benefit of the rulemaking. They're the flip side of losing other features the consumers value more. Appendix B of EPA's regulatory analysis relies on exactly that logic. If a consumer picks a gas-powered truck knowing it'll burn more fuel, they've made a trade they prefer. Forcing them into an EV to 'save' fuel costs is a net loss to them. Yet for many years, the government has treated this as a benefit. Behavioral Economics and the "Energy Efficiency Gap" Economists use the term 'energy efficiency gap' to describe the puzzling difference between the level of energy efficiency that appears cost-effective in theory and the lower level people actually choose in real life. For example, engineering calculations might show that spending $1,000 on better insulation, more efficient appliances, or a higher-MPG vehicle would pay for itself in a few years through lower utility or fuel bills. Yet, many consumers routinely forgo those investments. What explains the gap? One interpretation is that buyers are making biased, short-sighted decisions. This is the classic territory of "behavioral economics," a field focused on how real-world decisions often deviate from the assumptions of rational, optimizing behavior found in economists' models. Cognitive biases like hyperbolic discounting (placing too much weight on present rewards relative to future ones) or inattention (failing to notice or process fuel cost information) could lead people to under-invest in efficiency and leave money on the table. This perspective justifies counting the full value of 'missed' fuel savings as a regulatory benefit to the consumer, because the regulation is correcting their mistake. But there's another possibility, which is that the gap isn't a sign of bias at all, but instead a reflection of genuine trade-offs. A consumer might choose the lower-MPG car because they care more about acceleration, cargo space, style, or any number of attributes that are not captured in the fuel-savings calculations. An analyst who misinterprets the gap as a bias, when in fact the choice was based on a rational calculation, could force consumers into a less-preferred option and make them worse off. What's at Stake Separating bias from legitimate preferences is exceedingly difficult, and some would argue impossible. From the outside, the decision looks the same whether it's the product of error or preference. If we can't reliably distinguish between bias and preference, then the case for 'correcting' consumer choices becomes more about paternalism than empiricism. The stakes in this debate go beyond the Endangerment Finding. In many energy-efficiency rulemakings, 80 to 90 percent of the total monetized benefits come from the government's calculations of consumers' avoided energy costs. Environmental benefits to Americans are often in the low single-digit percentages. This means the overwhelming majority of the official benefit calculation hinges on the assumption that regulators can improve consumer welfare by steering people toward more efficient—and more expensive—products, even when buyers themselves would freely choose otherwise if left to decide on their own. This leaves economists in a quandary. Do they assume that observed market behavior is the best available measure of welfare, even if it sometimes reflects mistakes? Or do they override those choices based on models of what they think people should want if they made careful choices using all the available information? Or do they seek a middle ground, acknowledging that their models are often accurate but may also ignore important context-specific trade-offs? The answer to these questions determines whether a regulation's calculated benefits can be trusted. Private vs. Social Benefits Another complication relates to the difference between private and social benefits. Even when consumers make perfectly rational choices, what is in the interests of an individual doesn't always benefit society as a whole. When one person's gain imposes external costs on others, this can reduce, or even reverse, the net benefit for society. One obvious group affected by our purchasing decisions is future generations. It is easy to imagine future people might prefer that today's consumers forgo some luxuries in favor of greater savings and investment, which would improve living standards in the long run. But those intergenerational considerations are typically not reflected in market prices or, similarly, in economists' measures of revealed preference. In the context of energy and fuel economy, a dollar saved at the pump can be invested elsewhere in the economy, compounding to boost growth and future welfare. The enjoyment from a car feature like more horsepower or a panoramic sunroof can't be reinvested in the same way. So while a consumer may be better off paying more for those amenities, future generations probably will not be. From society's perspective, fuel and energy savings likely do represent social benefits for this reason, even when they don't compensate for their drawbacks from an individual's standpoint. A Rulemaking Worth Watching EPA's Endangerment Finding RIA pushes this debate forward by putting the revealed preference framework front-and-center, challenging the government's conventional inclusion of full lifetime fuel savings as a benefit. Whether that approach gains traction will matter well beyond this rulemaking. It's a core issue for how government evaluates climate and energy efficiency regulations generally. And it's another reason to watch closely how this already-high-stakes rulemaking unfolds.
