How anti-DEI initiatives
may impact students
We typically view Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs through the prism of race and culture. However, there is a profound connection between DEI principles and the progress made in Special Education over the past 50 years, especially in the context of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), passed in 1975, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990. Expanding rights and opportunities for students with disabilities is deeply intertwined with broader shifts in thinking about inclusion and access.
According to the U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate DEI press release issued on January 25, 2025, this Administration’s intent to eliminate DEI initiatives in education represent “the first step in reorienting the agency toward prioritizing meaningful learning ahead of divisive ideology in our schools.” However, advocates worry that support for inclusive education for students with disabilities may wane in the wave of politically charged efforts to dismantle DEI programs. “There could be some chilling effects or some kind of negative impacts of the overall anti-DEI efforts on how things look for kids with disabilities in schools,” said Dan Stewart, managing attorney for education and employment at the National Disability Rights Network, or NDRN, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of the legal rights of people with disabilities. (Arundel, 2024)
DEI initiatives have created inclusive educational environments where all students can access equitable opportunities regardless of ability, race, or background. These opportunities have included integrating children with disabilities into general education classrooms where they can have diverse learning experiences with their peers, and funding needed resources that focus on individualized support, culturally and linguistically appropriate materials, and increased teacher training. If DEI efforts are rolled back or eliminated, it could undermine these advancements, making it harder for special education to continue its progress in creating truly inclusive environments. It might also exacerbate existing inequalities or remove important frameworks for addressing the unique challenges faced by students with disabilities from varying backgrounds.
Until 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). This landmark federal legislation is rooted in the civil rights movement that served as the impetus for the Brown v. Board of Education decision. EHA laid the foundation for ensuring educational access for students with disabilities.
A central tenet of IDEA is the concept of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). FAPE entitles students with disabilities to an education tailored to their unique needs, which could include special education services, accommodations, and modifications. IDEA embodies the principle that every student, regardless of their disabilities, has the right to equal educational access. Equal educational access does not mean all students take the same classes or engage in the same activities. It means that all students can choose from a variety of courses and extracurricular options to create their unique educational pathway.
IDEA’s least restrictive environment provision fundamentally altered how educational opportunities for children with disabilities are delivered. LRE has made children spending at least part of their day in general education settings the rule rather than the exception. The ADA has been transformative in ensuring physical accessibility, but it is not just about infrastructure; it is also about mindset. When we push for DEI in other sectors, such as employment and higher education, we challenge assumptions about who can and should be part of society in meaningful ways. The parallel between those who resist DEI and those who are dismissive of the capabilities of children with disabilities is particularly potent. It suggests that people who view inclusion as a burden rather than a benefit may also fail to appreciate the potential for growth, achievement, and contribution from individuals with disabilities, provided they have the necessary resources and support.
Anti-DEI policies may also result in students receiving disciplinary actions based on manifestations of their disability or the lack of proper accommodation without established commitments to address system inequities, as required by IDEA. For example, children with autism often engage in repetitive movements, struggle with social interactions, or become overstimulated by sensory input, and children with ADHD frequently have trouble sitting still or following instructions. These behaviors are not intentionally defiant. Currently, when a student exhibits behavior that is determined to be a manifestation of their disability, schools cannot impose the same disciplinary measures they would on students without disabilities. Instead, the school must consider providing additional support, modifications, or adjustments to the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) to address the behavior. Anti-DEI byproducts often include a heightened focus on conformity and rejection of a tailored approach to accommodate the needs of neurodiverse learners.
If policymakers and the public retreat from DEI principles, it could reverse hard-won gains for children with disabilities. Continued support and funding for IDEA will maintain the educational framework that supports children with disabilities. We must continue to uphold the values of IDEA and the ADA to ensure that inclusion remains a priority across all aspects of society. There is a real risk that the loss of DEI safeguards could undermine these rights. The synergy between DEI efforts and Special Education policy is undeniable, and any shift away from the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion could jeopardize the progress made in providing meaningful educational opportunities for children with disabilities.
Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
- Dismantling DEI and Special Education – by Diane Storman - February 12, 2025