Michael A. Yassa , 2025-05-01 08:30:00
The recent news that the NIH will require universities to certify their diversity programs comply with federal civil rights law created understandable anxiety in the academic community. The confusion is partly due to coverage that suggested NIH is terminating support for any universities that operate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
But reading the actual NIH notice carefully provides clarity — and perhaps some reassurance.
I’ve spent more than 15 years working at the intersection of academia, science, and policy. As a professor and higher education leader focused on DEI, I’ve seen how federal agencies like NIH influence institutional practice. I’ve published and reviewed NIH-funded research, chaired grant review panels, and have closely followed the evolving policy landscape. This analysis comes not from speculation or secondhand reporting, but from a close reading of the guidance and direct experience navigating how these rules affect the research enterprise.
The NIH notice instructs institutions receiving new NIH funding to certify that they do not operate DEI programs “in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.”
At first glance, this might appear as an attack on all DEI programs. But the key phrase here is “in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.” Even if this administration is taking a very broad view of federal anti-discrimination laws, I don’t see how it could argue that most existing programs are in violation. Therefore, this policy is not broadly dismantling diversity efforts; instead, it restates existing law and intensifies enforcement. The real shift is in how violations could be penalized. Rather than removing funding for only specific problematic grants, NIH now threatens to halt all grants to institutions that cross the line.
This should not come as a surprise if you’ve been following the news. The NIH is following directives from a January executive order that instructed federal agencies to ensure their funding does not support discriminatory practices. There’s also ongoing litigation targeting programs exclusively based on race or gender. This policy appears designed to shield NIH from those lawsuits and place compliance burdens onto institutions.
This may sound overly optimistic to some, but to my view, most DEI programs won’t be affected. The majority of programs rely on broader criteria that include socioeconomic disadvantage, first-generation status, disability, or caregiving burden; those structures should remain unaffected. The greatest exposure lies with initiatives reserving scholarships, internships, or faculty positions exclusively for members of a protected class without a narrowly tailored legal defense.
This does, however, raise a legitimate concern about whether NIH is the right entity to police civil-rights compliance. Typically, enforcement of federal civil-rights laws occurs through courts or agencies specifically designed for this purpose, such as the Department of Justice or Office for Civil Rights. Relying on NIH funding as a compliance mechanism places universities in the difficult position of interpreting complex civil-rights law, a task typically reserved for courts or specialized agencies. NIH would greatly assist institutions by quickly issuing detailed compliance guidance with clear examples.
There are some things universities can do to ensure and document compliance and reduce the potential for misunderstanding. For example, they can conduct an internal audit of programs referencing race, sex, or ethnicity, identifying and modifying any that restrict participation based on these factors. They can obtain guidance from legal counsel on eligibility language for scholarships, internships, or hiring initiatives. They can document clearly how programs remain open to all qualified candidates, and tie selection criteria explicitly to documented barriers such as economic disadvantage, disability, or first-generation status. And they can provide training for staff who run diversity programs to avoid unintentionally restrictive or ambiguous language.
At a deeper level, institutions may need to reconsider their approaches to ensure broader, more inclusive, and legally robust ways to foster diversity. Thoughtful adjustments and careful documentation can protect important diversity efforts while complying fully with existing laws.
While the NIH policy introduces higher financial stakes and places compliance responsibility firmly with universities, it stops short of broadly dismantling DEI efforts. No one denies that certain DEI programs historically raised valid legal questions due to overly restrictive eligibility criteria, underscoring the rationale for heightened scrutiny.
However, this does not call for preemptive compliance. Institutions should read the guidance carefully, act with precision, and avoid dismantling programs unnecessarily in the absence of clear legal concerns. Supporting diversity in science remains essential, and institutions should thoughtfully redesign programs to navigate this new landscape. The ultimate goal of ensuring broad and equitable access to the scientific enterprise should remain our shared priority.
Michael A. Yassa, Ph.D., is a professor of neurobiology and behavior at the University of California, Irvine. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policies or positions of the University of California, Irvine.
