For those who have carefully studied the U.S. Supreme Court's Opinion in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) with a keen eye for legal nuance (v. second-hand information and/or interpretation), think about the pivotal departure from the Court giving deference to the ‘educational judgment’ of universities for determining their own diversity interests. Combine that with the Court’s acknowledgment of the universities’ “commendable”, but “standardless” goals for advancing diversity within their institutions. Then, follow the legal rationale in the Opinion. It's an open door for the external influences pushing anti-DEI rhetoric and utilizing litigation as a threat to take down DEI measures based on illusive allegations that organizations are violating legal principles.
It’s time for DEI advocacy to shift from a defensive to an offensive stance against the opposition. Discovering legal nuance and understanding what the SFFA Court did and did NOT say is a good starting point and staying focused on impact rather than ideology is a pre-requisite. The consequences for ending diversity, equity and inclusion within institutions far outweigh the risks of sustaining objectives that promote fairness and impartiality with access to opportunities and that ensure bias is mitigated against representative differences – it’s a universal benefit the anti-DEI contingent can’t see because their ideology blinds the vision. The door to anti-DEI causes was merely opened by the Court's ruling in SFFA; it's not locked.
Check out the 55-second presentation for some additional perspective.