Staff at two major Tennessee universities have been caught rebranding their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to evade new federal restrictions, leaving many to wonder if these evasive maneuvers are just the tip of the iceberg.
At a Glance
- Vanderbilt University and the University of Tennessee have rebranded DEI efforts under new names like “access and engagement” and “belonging and community.”
- The rebranding aims to bypass restrictions imposed by Trump’s executive order targeting federal DEI programs.
- Undercover recordings reveal staff openly discussing strategies to continue DEI initiatives under different labels.
- This tactic reflects a broader national trend of universities adapting to anti-DEI legislation.
Universities Sidestep Federal Restrictions
In an era where conservative values are gaining ground, the latest revelations from Vanderbilt University and the University of Tennessee (UT) have sparked considerable controversy. Staff members at these institutions have admitted to rebranding their DEI programs as “access and engagement” and “belonging and community.” This move comes as a direct response to an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, which aimed to end “radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing” across federally funded institutions.
Undercover recordings released in July 2025 show university staff candidly discussing the rebranding process. Will Eakin, the coordinator for UT’s “Access & Engagement” office, described the situation as “a chess game,” while Ivie Carmouche, an academic coach at Vanderbilt, confirmed the ongoing DEI work under new names.
This strategic rebranding allows these universities to continue their programming while ostensibly complying with the new federal rules. The recordings have ignited a firestorm, raising questions about transparency and adherence to both legal and ethical standards. Critics point out the inherent racism in Trump’s order and how some institutions are bound to resist.
Watch: https://youtube.com/shorts/zP6kGAdWRD4?feature=shared
Political and Financial Stakes
The stakes are high for these universities, both financially and politically. Vanderbilt and its medical center received over $1.08 billion in research and development expenditures in 2022, with more than 80% coming from federal sources. The potential loss of federal funding, should they be found noncompliant, poses a significant threat to their operations.
Yet, the universities are also under pressure to maintain inclusive environments for students, which DEI programs are designed to promote. This balancing act between compliance and institutional values has become increasingly complex, with university government relations teams playing a crucial role in navigating these turbulent waters.
While the universities have removed DEI language from their websites and communications, the core programming continues unabated. The Student Center for Social Justice and Identity at Vanderbilt, for example, is now the Student Center for Belonging and Communities. This rebranding effort mirrors similar strategies employed by other universities nationwide, such as those in Florida and Texas, where state bans on DEI activities have prompted institutions to adapt their public language while retaining the essence of their DEI work.
Impact on Campus and Beyond
The implications of these revelations are profound. In the short term, support services for marginalized students remain operational, albeit under new guises. However, the increased scrutiny from both lawmakers and the media threatens the universities’ reputations and funding. The long-term consequences could be even more severe. Should the rebranding be deemed noncompliant with state or federal laws, penalties or the loss of funding could follow. This case also sets a precedent for other institutions facing similar legislative pressures, potentially leading to a nationwide shift in how DEI work is publicly presented.
The broader impacts are felt across economic, social, and political spheres. Economically, federal and state funding streams are at risk. Socially, the rebranding may create a chilling effect on open discussions of diversity and inclusion, eroding trust between students and administration. Politically, this situation intensifies the national debate over the role of DEI in higher education and the limits of state intervention. As universities adapt to these challenges, the question remains: Is rebranding a pragmatic response to political realities or a retreat from institutional commitments to equity and justice?