Former Indiana attorney general Curtis Hill has argued in an opinion piece that diversity, equity and inclusion programs harm the Black community and that merit should remain the central standard for Black achievement. Hill contends that opposing race-based quotas is a pro-equality position rather than an anti-Black one, and he frames the debate around whether individuals are judged by their performance or by their race.
The piece reflects a broader debate over the rollback of DEI initiatives in corporate, philanthropic and government settings. The rollback has raised questions about how support for historically Black colleges and universities, known as HBCUs, will be sustained. Hill draws a distinction between voluntary support for HBCUs and mandatory racial quotas, arguing that the two should not be conflated.
Hill also argues that the rapid adoption of DEI programs after 2020 was driven largely by social pressure rather than by proven gains in performance. He points to the need for broader reforms in education, including K-12 improvements, expanded vocational pathways and the deregulation of professional licensing, as more durable routes to opportunity for Black Americans and others.
The debate has also been shaped by a conversation involving media personality Stephen A. Smith, who raised concerns with President Donald Trump during an October meeting at the White House. Smith said the rollback of DEI programs was having a chilling effect on corporate support for HBCUs. According to the reporting, Trump said he had not fully considered that chilling effect.
Smith's concern reflects a practical problem for schools that depend on private money. Donors reportedly fear that gifts to HBCUs could be read as DEI-related spending, which in turn could draw government scrutiny. Private foundations and corporate philanthropy have also reportedly pulled back. Federal agencies have paused some awards to HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions, adding to the uncertainty facing those schools.
Shareholders have separately pressed companies for more information about their DEI spending. Some proposals sought disclosure of whether those expenditures produced measurable returns and how much litigation risk they carried. Race-based preferences have been cited as possibly violating federal anti-discrimination law, a point that has become central to the legal argument over these programs.
It remains unclear how widespread the donor pullback from HBCUs has been. The reporting on that trend rests largely on anecdote rather than comprehensive data, which leaves open how much of the reduced giving is directly tied to DEI rollbacks and how much reflects other factors. Hill's essay adds a conservative case to that unsettled debate, arguing that equal treatment and merit-based standards serve Black Americans better than race-conscious programs.