Indiana AG: Butler, DePauw universities' DEI policy may violate law, warrant legal action
In letters sent to the university presidents May 28, Rokita argued the institution's DEI-friendly policies could constitute racial discrimination and violate civil rights laws.
Both Butler and DePauw still list DEI as priorities within their strategic plans. Rokita largely pointed to those goals and adjoining policies as the basis for his letters. In those plans, the universities say they seek to attract more diverse faculty and staff, provide improved support to those communities and build a campus promoting DEI principles.
"Hoosiers are rightfully concerned that some education institutions treat students, faculty, staff and others differently based on race under the guise of DEI or other," Rokita said in a release.
The colleges have until June 27 to respond to Rokita's letter with answers to his questions and requested data. Whether he takes further action, he said in a news release, depends on the colleges' responses and if they are following a "legal and moral commitment to racial equality."
Several of Indiana's public universities have shuttered its DEI programs to comply with new state and federal anti-DEI mandates. So far, that includes Indiana University, Purdue University, Ivy Tech Community College and Ball State University.
Rokita also sent a similar May 9 letter to the University of Notre Dame requesting DEI information to ensure its compliance with federal and state law. Rokita said the university must respond with requested materials by June 9. Neither the Attorney General's Office nor the university have responded to IndyStar requests for an update.
If a university doesn't comply, his letters threaten challenges to the institution's nonprofit status. However, the Internal Revenue Service, if it chooses, would still need to investigate and decide to revoke a school's tax-exempt status. President Donald Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard University's nonprofit status, which the university claims is illegal, if it does not conform to his demands.
DePauw President Lori White has also previously been vocally supportive of such policies, which Rokita criticizes in his letter. In May 2023, White was one of 27 liberal arts college presidents to sign a letter stating they intend to continue prioritizing inclusive policies following the Supreme Court's decision to make race-conscious admission illegal.
"It seems DePauw University may have met that moment and the Court's decision with evasion, circumvention, and obstruction, rather than a good faith desire to respect the civil rights of students and faculty," Rokita's letter reads.
Rokita largely leans on the the U.S. Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions decision, which barred universities from enrolling students using affirmative action.
Since taking office, Trump has stripped diversity practices and efforts out of the federal government, and his administration has begun focusing its anti-DEI efforts on higher education and the private sector.
Gov. Mike Braun has done the same in Indiana. On his second full day in office, he signed an executive order to remove DEI initiatives and policies from state government, including closing the Office of the Chief Equity, Inclusion and Opportunity created by then-Gov. Holcomb in 2020.
Braun also signed a bill into law May 6 to allow individuals to sue publicly funded schools or government entities for DEI policies and programs. Senate Enrolled Act 289 prohibits public institutions from taking actions based on an individual's "personal characteristic," such as race, religion, color and sex.
The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
The left is trying to use international ‘lawfare' to shut down Musk and X
Elon Musk had three recent posts on X that are worth noting if you are opposed to censorship and cancellation. The first was two cartoon panels with the question, 'How do you tell who's telling the Truth?' The next panel offered the answer: 'The ones trying to silence other people are the ones lying.' Just prior to that, Musk had reposted a post that reads, 'President Trump's State Department has announced it is coming to the defense of Elon Musk's X after France labeled it an organized crime group and opened a criminal investigation. The State Department's DLR [the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor] stated, 'As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X's proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an 'organized crime group.' Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United States will defend the free speech of all Americans against acts of foreign censorship.'' And just prior to that, Musk reposted a post from the conservative activist Mark Kern: 'There is a full on attack on the Internet by the UK and EU, disguised as 'for the children.' The ID requirement is affecting even Discord users and X users. It is full on dystopian as they ramp up police to arrest people for speech.' Below that is a link to a Telegraph article with the headline 'Elite Police Squad to Monitor Anti-Migrant Posts on Social Media.' Multiple people I have spoken with in the U.S., the U.K. and the EU believe that Musk and his X platform represent the greatest single threat to the far left and its goal of pushing its narratives unchallenged across the globe. One way the left now seems intent on stopping Musk and X is by mimicking the various 'lawfare' schemes rolled out against then-candidate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 election, which many Trump supporters saw as an unethical attempt to force him out of the race. While that 'lawfare' tactic failed — thanks in large part to Trump taking it head-on, day after day, while exposing it for what it was — activists in Europe and elsewhere believe the strategy can be refined and hardened for use against Musk and X in an attempt to intimidate, censor or silence them. Lest we forget, back in 2023, the European Union opened a probe into X for alleged 'failure to counter illegal content and disinformation.' Ah. The catch-all accusation frequently used by the intelligentsia on the left: 'disinformation.' Recall the draconian COVID-19 dictates from the left enacted to combat 'disinformation'? Here is a January headline from ABC News: 'EU politicians warn against Elon Musk's incursions into European politics.' Of course, Musk might rightfully retort that his 'disinformation' and 'incursions' were not only protected free speech, but simply ways to point out severe double-standards and harmful policies that were having an adverse effect upon the majority of the citizens of those nations. I wrote a piece for this site a year ago titled ' Could Elon Musk actually be arrested and X cancelled?' I highlighted calls for Musk to be arrested for stating his opinions while anticipating that the personal animus directed against him, X and the internet by certain individuals and groups in Europe advocating for censorship and cancellation could grow. It now seems that I was correct. All of which raises an obvious question:Why do so many on the left want to prevent people around the world from gathering as much information as possible on their own, then coming to their own conclusions based on their own research? Do they fear people thinking for themselves? Do they fear their own constituents, customers and neighbors? Open minds open doors. I have always believed it imperative to listen to those I may disagree with. What if I am wrong and they are correct? What if they show me a truth I refused to believe out of ignorance, intolerance or indoctrination? Aren't I the one getting a gift — one I could not receive if their voices were censored or canceled? Alarmingly, many on the left in Europe — as well as in the U.S. — don't seem to share my belief that we need to listen to those we disagree with. Note this April headline from The New York Times: 'E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against Elon Musk's X.' The opening paragraph of the article spells it out: 'European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against Elon Musk's social media platform, X, for breaking a landmark law to combat illicit content and disinformation, said four people with knowledge of the plans.' Once again, the left rolls out 'illicit content and disinformation' against Musk, X and the internet. Of course, millions around the world who are against censorship and cancellation and strongly in favor of free speech might say this is a transparent attempt by some on the left to intimidate and censor a site and voices that expose their continual failures to billions of people around the world. One person's 'disinformation' is another's 'irrefutable truth.' Don't hide behind censorship. Let the people think for themselves.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Myanmar military courts sentence 12 to life for human trafficking, including Chinese nationals
BANGKOK (AP) — Myanmar military courts have sentenced a dozen individuals — including five Chinese nationals — to life imprisonment for their involvement in multiple human trafficking cases, state-run media reported Saturday. According to the Myanma Alinn newspaper, the convictions stem from a range of offenses including the online distribution of sex videos and the trafficking of Myanmar women into forced marriages in China. In one case, five people — including two Chinese nationals identified as Lin Te and Wang Xiaofeng — were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court in Yangon, the country's largest city, on July 29. They were found guilty under Myanmar's Anti-Trafficking in Persons law for producing sex videos involving three Myanmar couples and distributing the footage online for profit. In a separate case, the same court sentenced a woman and three Chinese nationals — Yibo, Cao Qiu Quan and Chen Huan. The group was convicted of planning to transport two Myanmar women, recently married to two of the convicted Chinese men, into China, the report said. Additionally, three other people received life sentences from a separate military court for selling a woman as a bride to China, and for attempting to do the same with another woman. In another case, a woman from Myanmar's central Magway region was given a 10-year sentence on July 30 for planning to transport two Myanmar women to be sold as brides to Chinese men, the report said. Human trafficking, particularly of women and girls lured or forced into marriages in China, remains a widespread problem in Myanmar, a country still reeling from civil war after the military seized power from the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021. The persisting conflict in most areas of Myanmar has left millions of women and children vulnerable to exploitation. A 2018 report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Kachin Women's Association Thailand (KWAT) — which works to prevent and respond to trafficking in northern Kachin and Shan states bordering China — estimated that about 21,000 women and girls from northern Myanmar were forced into marriage in China between 2013 and 2017. In its latest report published in December, KWAT noted a sharp decline in the number of trafficking survivors accessing its services from 2020 to 2023. It attributed the decline to the COVID-19 pandemic and border closures caused by ongoing conflict following the army takeover. However, it reported a resurgence in 2024 as people from across Myanmar began migrating to China in search of work. Maj-Gen Aung Kyaw Kyaw, a deputy minister for Home Affairs, said during a June meeting that the authorities had handled 53 cases of human trafficking, forced marriage and prostitution in 2024, 34 of which involved China, according to a report published by Myanmar's Information Ministry. The report also said that a total of 80 human trafficking cases, including 14 involving marriage deception by foreign nationals, were recorded between January and June this year.
Boston Globe
13 hours ago
- Boston Globe
‘Who speaks for the Jews?' The ADL, some say. Wrong, say others.
In a time of escalating global crises, including Israel's devastating siege of Gaza, which the UN has called Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Phillips argues that disproportionate criticism of Israel reveals latent antisemitism. But this ignores both the extraordinary scale of suffering in Gaza and the billions in US military aid that make this war possible. Holding a US-funded ally to account is not bigotry — it's our moral responsibility. Advertisement Today, perhaps more than ever, we need principled, not punitive, leadership from the ADL. Sandy Light Cambridge Caroline Light Belmont Miriam Cubstead Watertown Caroline Light is a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in women, gender, and sexuality studies at Harvard University. The views expressed here are her own and do not represent the university. Advertisement 'The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark' against hate My compliments to Colette A.M. Phillips for writing 'In defense of the Anti-Defamation League.' She is spot-on: Whatever the targeted group, violence can materialize from lack of education, prejudicial upbringing, or visceral hate, as shown, in the case of Jews, in Pittsburgh (mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue, Oct. 27, 2018); Boulder, Colo. (fire attack June 1 of this year on a group marching in solidarity with the hostages taken from Israel on Oct. 7, 2023); and Marietta, Ga. (the conviction in 1913, and subsequent lynching in 1915, of Leo Frank). The Anti-Defamation League really is a bulwark against people who have hate issues. It tries to raise awareness that there are better ways to bring respect and understanding for all people when there is division in society. Edward Sloan North Andover 'I have never felt represented or protected by the ADL' As a Jewish person who believes that all lives are sacred, including those of Palestinians, I have never felt represented or protected by the Anti-Defamation League. While in principle the ADL allows that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the organization has not afforded the same benefit of the doubt to pro-Palestinian protesters as it has done, for example, to Elon Musk for giving what appeared to be Colette A.M. Phillips argues that, since Israel's actions in Gaza have generated more protest than other atrocities around the globe, this protest must be a 'fig leaf' for antisemitism. This argument ignores both the scale of devastation — Gaza has been cited as Advertisement But for me, the reason to protest goes deeper. Growing up Jewish, I was told not only that Israel is the sacred ancestral home of our people but also that we have a special responsibility to ensure that what happened to us in the Holocaust does not happen to any people. When I see mass atrocities being committed by the country that is said to be my home, how can I remain silent? Ben Allen Boston 'The ADL is now a partisan organization' I am a Jewish American and found Colette A.M. Phillips's op-ed very disturbing. Despite claiming that 'criticizing a government is fair game,' she then says much political criticism of Israel is not fair game. Instead, she establishes an impossible test for permissible criticism: that the speaker must prove their criticism is not 'selective.' People have countless reasons for caring about some issues more than others. It has never been right to censor speech for its selectivity nor the imputed motives behind selectivity. Yet Phillips wants us to believe that in the case of Israel, we should reduce all special concern to hidden antisemitism. This is trying to win an argument without making it. Phillips falls back on the exhausted argument that 'we have learned to listen' to the oppressed. They decide what counts as bigoted. Even if true in principle, Advertisement Alex Gourevitch Cambridge The writer is an associate professor of political science at Brown University. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the university. 'All of us are capable of monstrous acts' I was raised with awareness of antisemitism — my grandparents fled the anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine, and many family friends were German, Polish, or Austrian survivors of the Holocaust. In 1980, my junior high school in Arlington was one of the first cohorts to use the Facing History and Ourselves curriculum. We studied the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the war in Cambodia. It was painful to hear specifics of the slaughter of Jews and of the passivity of bystanders who knew but did not act in opposition. However, in studying the Holocaust in the context of these other atrocities, it was always clear that this particular history was part of a much larger pattern of cruelty and resistance. As Jews, our suffering was not something that made us 'special'; rather, it was a dramatic example of recurring human barbarism. The ADL's defense of fascist acts is a bitter irony. Those who claim Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza are willfully ignoring mass starvation and heartless slaughter. It feels excruciating, but we must be honest that Americans, Israelis, Jews, indeed all of us are capable of monstrous acts, and we must put aside our pride and act with determination to stop the horror. Julia Halperin Jamaica Plain
