Indiana report details ways in which it removed DEI

Published in House and Home on Sunday, August 3rd 2025 at 9:20 GMT by Chicago Tribune
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

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.

Indiana's Comprehensive Report on Dismantling DEI Initiatives: A Deep Dive into Policy Shifts and Implementation Strategies

In a sweeping examination of state-level policy changes, a newly released report from Indiana's government outlines the multifaceted approaches taken to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across various public sectors. Titled "Realigning Priorities: Indiana's Path to Merit-Based Governance," the document, prepared by a task force appointed by Governor Eric Holcomb, provides a detailed chronicle of the state's efforts to phase out what it describes as "divisive and ideologically driven" initiatives. This report comes amid a broader national debate on the role of DEI in public institutions, with Indiana positioning itself as a leader in what proponents call a return to neutrality and meritocracy.

The report begins by contextualizing the push against DEI within Indiana's legislative history. It traces the origins back to 2023, when Senate Bill 202 was signed into law, mandating the review and potential restructuring of DEI offices in state universities and government agencies. This legislation, inspired by similar measures in states like Florida and Texas, aimed to prohibit the use of public funds for programs that, according to the bill's sponsors, promoted "preferential treatment based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics." The task force's findings reveal that Indiana's approach was not a blunt-force elimination but a calculated, multi-phased strategy involving audits, reallocations, and cultural shifts.

One of the core sections of the report details the dismantling of DEI structures in higher education. Indiana's public universities, including flagship institutions like Indiana University and Purdue University, were required to conduct internal audits of all DEI-related offices, curricula, and hiring practices. The report highlights specific examples: At Indiana University, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Multicultural Affairs was restructured into a smaller "Student Success and Support" unit, with its budget slashed by 40%. This involved eliminating mandatory DEI training for faculty and staff, which the report claims were often "compulsory ideological sessions" that stifled free speech. Instead, resources were redirected toward academic advising and mental health services, emphasizing "universal student support without regard to identity."

Purdue University took a more aggressive stance, as outlined in the document. The university dissolved its DEI committee entirely, integrating any remaining functions into existing human resources departments. The report praises this move for saving an estimated $2 million annually, funds that were repurposed for STEM scholarships and infrastructure improvements. A key tactic employed was the revision of tenure and promotion criteria to exclude DEI contributions as a metric for evaluation. Faculty members previously incentivized to incorporate DEI themes into their research or teaching now face a system that prioritizes "scholarly excellence and innovation" above all. The task force argues this fosters a more intellectually diverse environment by removing what it calls "enforced orthodoxy."

Beyond academia, the report delves into DEI removal in state government operations. Indiana's executive branch agencies underwent a comprehensive review starting in mid-2024. The Department of Workforce Development, for instance, eliminated DEI-focused recruitment programs that aimed to increase representation of underrepresented groups in state jobs. These were replaced with merit-based hiring protocols, including blind resume reviews and standardized testing to ensure selections based solely on qualifications. The report cites data showing a 15% increase in application pools from diverse candidates under the new system, attributing this to the removal of perceived quotas that may have deterred qualified applicants.

In the realm of K-12 education, Indiana's strategies were particularly proactive. The report describes how the state's Department of Education issued guidelines prohibiting DEI curricula in public schools. This included banning lessons on "critical race theory" and "implicit bias training" for teachers, which the task force deemed as promoting division rather than unity. Schools were instructed to audit textbooks and instructional materials for any content that could be interpreted as advancing DEI ideologies. One notable case study in the report involves the Indianapolis Public Schools district, where a DEI coordinator position was eliminated, and funds were reallocated to literacy programs. The task force claims this led to improved standardized test scores, though it acknowledges ongoing debates about causation.

The report also addresses corporate and private sector influences, noting how state incentives were tied to DEI compliance—or lack thereof. Businesses seeking tax breaks or contracts with the state must now certify that they do not mandate DEI training for employees. This policy, the report explains, was designed to prevent the "spillover" of DEI from public to private spheres, ensuring that Indiana's economic environment remains focused on productivity rather than social engineering. Examples include a major automotive manufacturer in the state that voluntarily phased out its DEI department after consultations with state officials, reportedly boosting employee morale by reducing internal conflicts.

Critics of these measures, as acknowledged in a balanced section of the report, argue that removing DEI undermines efforts to address systemic inequalities. The task force includes rebuttals from civil rights organizations like the ACLU of Indiana, which submitted testimony claiming that such policies could lead to decreased representation of minorities in leadership roles and exacerbate achievement gaps. However, the report counters with statistics from pre- and post-implementation periods, suggesting that overall employee satisfaction and student performance have not declined, and in some cases, have improved due to a focus on individual merit.

Implementation challenges are candidly discussed, providing a realistic view of the process. The report notes resistance from university faculty unions and student groups, leading to protests on campuses in Bloomington and West Lafayette. Legal hurdles were also encountered; for instance, a lawsuit filed by a coalition of professors alleged violations of academic freedom, but it was dismissed by a state court in early 2025. To mitigate backlash, the task force recommended phased rollouts and communication campaigns emphasizing the benefits of "equality over equity," framing the changes as inclusive rather than exclusionary.

Looking forward, the report proposes a blueprint for sustaining these reforms. It calls for annual audits of all state-funded entities to ensure no resurgence of DEI under different names, such as "belonging" or "inclusion" initiatives. Additionally, it advocates for federal advocacy, urging Indiana's congressional delegation to support national legislation mirroring the state's model. The task force envisions Indiana as a model for other conservative-leaning states, potentially influencing policy in the Midwest and beyond.

In terms of broader implications, the report situates Indiana's actions within a national context. It references similar efforts in Utah, Oklahoma, and Alabama, where DEI bans have been enacted, contrasting them with states like California and New York that have doubled down on such programs. The document argues that Indiana's methodical approach—combining legislative mandates with practical reallocations—offers a scalable template that balances fiscal responsibility with ideological neutrality.

Public reactions, as compiled in the report's appendix, vary widely. Supporters, including conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, hail it as a victory for American values. Detractors, from progressive advocacy groups, warn of long-term societal costs, such as reduced innovation from homogeneous workforces. The task force concludes by asserting that the removal of DEI is not about erasing diversity but about ensuring it emerges organically, without state intervention.

This report, spanning over 150 pages, serves as both a justification and a manual for Indiana's anti-DEI crusade. It underscores a pivotal shift in how the state views equity in public policy, prioritizing individual achievement over group-based interventions. As debates rage on, Indiana's detailed accounting provides a window into the mechanics of cultural and institutional change, offering lessons for policymakers nationwide. Whether this model will endure or face reversal remains to be seen, but for now, it stands as a testament to the state's commitment to reshaping its governance landscape.

Read the Full Chicago Tribune Article at:
[ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/07/23/indiana-report-details-ways-in-which-it-removed-dei/ ]