College campuses may look different this academic year as diversity, equity, and inclusion positions and programming have been eliminated.

Removing DEI programming returns colleges to their core missions of teaching and research. Instead of administrators finding creative ways to discriminate against students based on color, police speech, and force conformity of thought, they can focus on supporting students’ academic success, faculty’s research and presentation, a flourishing campus, and a hospitable environment for free thought.

Stakeholders committed to academic freedom, student achievement, and equality of opportunity should be vigilant to ensure that DEI is not just rebranded under a new name and that efforts to promote true diversity and freedom of thought are replacing it.

Florida is a case study that other states are following. Last year, Florida passed first-of-its-kind legislation defunding DEI positions and programming throughout the state’s postsecondary public institutions. It also ended policies that classified students and illegally promoted differential or preferential treatment based on superficial characteristics such as race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation, which have no bearing on aptitude or capability. At the time, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said rooting out DEI practices would “treat people as individuals” and “elevate merit and achievement above identification with certain groups.”

The Board of Governors approved regulations enacting the legislation this January, and schools began to comply in letter, but not all in spirit. The University of Florida shuttered its Office of the Chief Diversity Officer, eliminated at least a dozen DEI-related positions, and reallocated approximately $5 million in funds that supported salaries and programming to a faculty recruitment fund. By reallocating DEI funding to hiring more professors, UF headed off a common bait-and-switch tactic of continuing programming under different names.

The University of North Florida, based in Jacksonville, Florida, shuttered its diversity office before the spring semester concluded. Students returned this fall to a campus that no longer houses an Intercultural Center, an Interfaith Center, an LGBTQ Center, or a Women’s Center. However, some services have just been resettled in other departments.

Florida International University eliminated its DEI positions. However, as a letter from the student government lays bare, “all of the initiatives we know and love will continue to exist.” Departments have been renamed, and diversity and inclusivity programs are hidden “behind webpages covered in vague doublespeak.”

Other states are following Florida’s lead. Texas followed the Sunshine State in passing similar legislation removing DEI offices. So far, at least 100 positions have been eliminated across the state but in ways that could lead to DEI being carried on under another moniker. In January, Utah prohibited DEI initiatives in higher education and state government. In addition, nearly two dozen states have introduced 50 pieces of legislation that would defund or eliminate DEI in public higher education institutions this year.

Efficiency is a byproduct of this effort to remove DEI, underscoring how bloated college administrations have become. According to a 2021 analysis of 65 universities representing 16% of all students, DEI staff outpaced professors by 1.4 times and staff assisting disabled students by four times. DEI-promoting positions can outnumber students, outearn faculty, and overwhelm other higher-education positions. Meanwhile, schools hike tuition costs without measurably improving the educational experience for students.

But the charitable community need not abandon the idea of diversity. Instead of equity, embrace true diversity: appreciating each contributor’s unique perspectives, backgrounds, and differences rather than the person’s participation in a demographic group. Grantmaking that’s true to missions and supports individualized pathways to opportunity will truly help people of all experiences.

Alumni and donors should consider being more strategic with their charitable giving. Nearly $60 billion were given to colleges and universities in fiscal 2021 and 2022, with over 1 in 3 of those dollars flowing from individual donors.

Joanne Florino, a philanthropic expert with decades of experience running and advising foundations, suggests higher education donors (no matter their giving levels) be judicious to ensure their giving aligns with their values, sparks change, and protects the intent behind the gifts. For example, general-purpose gifts are hands-off but can also unknowingly support DEI programming and policies.

Giving toward the creation or support of academic centers can be a more strategic way to incorporate a particular field of study on campus than the construction of a building. Just be cautious that, over time, the center doesn’t lose relevancy or pursue an agenda contrary to what was envisioned. Funding may also be mismanaged. These are especially true when donors have passed on. So, give while alive.

Also, consider less typical gifts. Support graduate independent study to advance specific principles: for example, economic freedom and the rule of law. Or facilitate opportunities for the exchange of ideas on campus that expand viewpoint diversity, such as debates between media personalities or speeches by unpopular figures.

Returning to campus should not mean going back to business as usual. But it’s up to policymakers and funders to ensure true diversity is supported and encouraged.