The University of Hawaiʻi belongs to the population of these islands, not the UH’s Office of General Counsel, Office of Vice President of Research, Board of Regents, or its president.

We elect officials and pay taxes to support them to uphold our democratic values and cultural diversity, sustain Native Hawaiian rights, and commit to equal access to public education. As our higher public education system, UH needs to also abide by this ethos.

Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne Lopez has joined or leads lawsuits against recent White House executive orders (14151, 14173 and 14222) which seek to limit or disappear diversity, equity, and inclusion websites and programs.

In relation to executive orders targeting “illegal DEI and DEIA policies” the “Multi-State Guidance” issued by the Democratic state attorneys general pursuing the lawsuit recommends not altering any DEI content if and until it is legally required, stating, “President Trump is misleading the American people on purpose of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives.”

Yet across UH campuses, we are being misled into capitulation and being asked to modify DEI content and to remove it from website and in the structuring of our programs.

A video presentation by the federal contract law firm Roffman Horvitz provides valuable information in relation to higher education and our current legal environment. It outlines our federal laws, the executive orders, and defines DEI that remains “unambiguously legal” or “presumed unlawful” under the Trump administration.

Why is UH acting out of synch with our AG and state and federal legislators and our federal and state legislatures that broadly oppose Trump’s agenda and its challenges to DEI?

UH is also acting contrary to the positions of national professional organizations such as the American Association of University Professors,  the American Association of Colleges and Universities, or the American Association of Community Colleges reminding us that “the underlying statutes and case law that govern campus policies have not changed.”

Our state constitution offers further civil protections from the DEI executive orders, should they be recognized as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court. If House Resolution 205 were introduced and passed as a bill, Hawaiʻi could further substantiate its commitment to DEI through legislation.

Those of us on campus who have been working to restore UH digital content (see our petition and participation in the April 17 National Day of Action for higher education) recognize that when DEI words disappear, ideas and opportunities, follow.

We understand that the diversity across UH in 2025 exists not only because of the state’s demographics, but due to DEI programming and websites that seek to attract under-represented groups.

The increase of Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, or Filipino/a/x students is because those who made their way through UH, worked to create spaces of equity and inclusion for the next generation.

If we apply Trump’s DEI executive orders when they are being legally challenged, rather than stand with U.S. campuses, even those under direct attack, that are resisting them, then we have preemptively capitulated to the logic that many of us have earned our education and position not based on our merit but as a “DEI hire” harming generations of college graduates long into the future.

Until recently the UH system proudly announced holding the most diverse student population and was expanding DEI efforts that broadened access for students, diversified the pool of applicants, and celebrated gender, ethnic, racial, and Indigenous diversity.

Let’s not hand over to the Trump administration the diversity, equity, and inclusion websites and programs that our predecessors worked so hard to attain.