Indiana report details ways in which it removed DEI
Gov. Mike Braun's administration released a report earlier this month on its efforts to replace diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, with merit, excellence, and innovation, or MEI.
In January, Braun signed an executive order directing state agencies to review their DEI positions, departments, activities, procedures and programs for compliance with the decision in , where the U.S. Supreme Court rejected affirmative action at college and universities.
Indiana Black Legislative Caucus Chair State Rep. Earl Harris, D-East Chicago, said he's concerned by the state's effort to remove diversity, equity and inclusion from state agencies, which follows actions taken by the Trump administration.
'Unfortunately, a lot of things that are happening on the national level are trickling down to states,' Harris said.
The report found more than 350 examples of DEI initiatives in state government programs, 70 cases of DEI training, instruction or programming for state employees, 34 grants within Indiana State agencies focused on DEI and 200 DEI initiatives in state agency policy and procedures.
'Indiana has replaced the divisive, politically-charged DEI ideology with merit, excellence and innovation: a level playing field where every single Hoosier has the chance to get ahead with hard work,' Braun said in a statement.
The report addresses where agencies had diversity, equity and inclusion language, from website information to candidate hiring, and the removal of the information from the agency's policies, contracts and websites to align with Braun's executive order.
For example, under the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration's division of mental health and addiction, the report highlighted 53 contracts that include DEI language. Many of the contracts state the vendor has to work within a 'culturally competence framework,' according to the report.
The contracts that haven't expired are being amended or edited to remove DEI language, according to the report.
The Indiana Commission for Higher Education's graduate medical education board, which focuses on funding physician residency programs across the state, issued a statement in 2020 about efforts to 'combat the scourge of racial and ethnic bias and its negatively associated social determinants of health,' according to the report.
That statement was removed from its website, according to the report.
The College Success Program was funded in the 2023 budget to 'be used for college success programs including capital investments for minority and first-generation low-income students,' according to the report.
Three grants issued through the College Success Program supported first-generation students of color at Indiana State University; Black, Latino and Hispanic students at Purdue University Northwest; and first-generation college students and/or of an underrepresented background in Valparaiso University.
Indiana State and VU repurposed their grant funding to other scholarships, but Purdue Northwest had continued its efforts as of April 30, 2025. The upcoming budget does not allocate funding for the College Success Program, so the grants 'will naturally conclude' at the end of the year, according to the report.
The Indiana Department of Education has an online learning lab where thousands of educational videos are available for students and teachers, according to the report. When the department reviewed the videos, some with information like 'to support diverse learners in inclusive classrooms' and 'the essential role of equity and inclusion in the new science starnars' were taken down, according to the report.
State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said he hadn't read the report and that legislative leadership hadn't discussed the report with House members. But, Aylesworth said the governor's office has the ability to take some action without the legislature.
'I certainly don't have a problem with (the report). It's the governor's prerogative,' Aylesworth said.
Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, said he hadn't read the report and didn't want to comment on it without doing so.
DEI has been twisted to mean something negative, Harris said, with some people pushing the idea that DEI means unqualified people who are a minority, a woman or a member of the LGBTQ community are getting jobs or contracts or opportunities based on their race, sex or gender.
'That's not what DEI is about. It actually opens up the pool to make sure that all the best have the opportunity,' Harris said. 'This whole DEI gives unqualified people the upper hand is so untrue. It actually means that even more of the best of the best are allowed opportunity.'
Harris also focused criticism on the elimination of the Indiana Department of Health's maternal health equity coordinator position. Indiana's rates of maternal mortality, especially among Black women, are some of the highest in the nation — 73% higher than their white peers according to 2021 data.
The report also states that 19 contractors who worked under the Office of Minority Health were eliminated.
Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, said DEI is the 'alphabet soup of the year' that Republicans are attacking.
'What we're going to see is really more homogeny, more privilege, as opposed to ensuring that we have representation throughout our different communities,' Pol said. 'I think that it's all political theater.'
Removing items that address diversity, equity and inclusion will 'cause some issues for our state,' Harris said, and it will hurt all Hoosiers. As the state removes diversity, equity and inclusion from its policies, some Hoosiers may decide to move and those debating whether to move to Indiana for school or work may choose not to, he said.
When policies like this are in place, Harris said he takes comfort in knowing 'there will always be another legislative session.'
'Hopefully, as we see where this goes, we can do adjustments. The problem and the fear is what damage will already be done and how long will it take us to get where we were,' Harris said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
4 hours ago
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder t old ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June."I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A federal judge says Rhode Island's gun permit system, which requires residents to show 'a need' to openly carry a firearm throughout the state, does not violate the Second Amendment. In a ruling handed down Friday, U.S. District Judge William Smith granted Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha's motion for summary judgment that dismisses a lawsuit filed by a coalition of gun owners in 2023. The lawsuit stems from a Rhode Island law dictating how the state issues firearms permits. According to the statute, local officials are required to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who meets the specific criteria outlined in the statute. However, it also allows the attorney general's office to issue open-carry permits 'upon a proper showing of need.' Unlike municipalities, the attorney general is not required to issue such permits. The plaintiffs, largely led by Michael O'Neil, a lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition and a firearm instructor, said in their initial complaint that the attorney general's office denied all seven of their applications in 2021 for an 'unrestricted' firearm permit, allowing both open and concealed carry. Court documents show that the attorney general's office denied their permits because all of them had been granted 'restricted' permits, which only allowed concealed carry. Smith said in his ruling that unrestricted permits 'are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one.' The plaintiffs had hoped for a similar ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, where the justices struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Yet, notably, Smith said in his ruling that the high court's 2022 ruling did not declare that the Second Amendment 'requires open carry,' but even if it did, Rhode Island's law 'is within the Nation's historical tradition of regulation.' Frank Saccoccio, the attorney representing the gun owners, said in an email Monday that they did not believe Smith's decision was in line with the 2022 SCOTUS decision and would be appealing.
5 hours ago
Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A federal judge says Rhode Island's gun permit system, which requires residents to show 'a need' to openly carry a firearm throughout the state, does not violate the Second Amendment. In a ruling handed down Friday, U.S. District Judge William Smith granted Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha's motion for summary judgment that dismisses a lawsuit filed by a coalition of gun owners in 2023. The lawsuit stems from a Rhode Island law dictating how the state issues firearms permits. According to the statute, local officials are required to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who meets the specific criteria outlined in the statute. However, it also allows the attorney general's office to issue open-carry permits 'upon a proper showing of need.' Unlike municipalities, the attorney general is not required to issue such permits. The plaintiffs, largely led by Michael O'Neil, a lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition and a firearm instructor, said in their initial complaint that the attorney general's office denied all seven of their applications in 2021 for an 'unrestricted' firearm permit, allowing both open and concealed carry. Court documents show that the attorney general's office denied their permits because all of them had been granted 'restricted' permits, which only allowed concealed carry. Smith said in his ruling that unrestricted permits 'are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one.' The plaintiffs had hoped for a similar ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, where the justices struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Similar to Rhode Island, New York's law had required residents to show an actual need to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense. Yet, notably, Smith said in his ruling that the high court's 2022 ruling did not declare that the Second Amendment 'requires open carry,' but even if it did, Rhode Island's law 'is within the Nation's historical tradition of regulation.' Frank Saccoccio, the attorney representing the gun owners, said in an email Monday that they did not believe Smith's decision was in line with the 2022 SCOTUS decision and would be appealing.
