Diversity

WASHINGTON — Historically, the U.S. military has been an engine for cultural and social change in America. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s vision for the armed forces he leads runs counter to that.

In comments Tuesday to hundreds of military leaders and their chief enlisted advisers, Hegseth made clear he was not interested in a diverse or inclusive force. His address at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, verbalized what Hegseth has been doing as he takes on any program that can be labeled diversity, equity or inclusion, as well as targeting transgender personnel. Separately, the focus on immigration also is sweeping up veterans.

For too long, “the military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay, some of it obvious, some of it hidden,” Hegseth said. “Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore.”

Hegseth’s actions — and plans for more — are a reversal of the role the military has often played.

“The military has often been ahead of at least some broader social, cultural, political movements,” said Ronit Stahl, associate professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. ”The desegregation of the armed forces is perhaps the most classic example.”

President Harry S. Truman’s desegregation order in 1948 came six years before the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in the Brown vs. Board of Education case — and, Stahl said, “that obviously takes a long time to implement, if it ever fully is implemented.”

It has been a circuitous path

Truman’s order was not a short progression through American society. Although the military was one of the few places where there was organizational diversity, the races did not mix in their actual service. Units like the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers and the Buffalo Soldiers, formed in 1866, were segregated until the order opened the door to integrated units.

Women were given full status to serve in 1948 with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. There were restrictions on how many could serve and they were generally not allowed to command men or serve in combat. Before then, they had wartime roles and they did not serve in combat, although hundreds of nurses died and women were pilots, including Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs.

The WASPs and Tuskegee Airmen were among the first groups this year to be affected when Hegseth issued his DEI order. The Air Force removed training videos of the airmen along with ones showing the World War II contributions of the WASPs at the basic training base in San Antonio. The videos were restored after widespread bipartisan outcry over their removal.

Other issues over time have included “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that allowed gay and lesbian service members to serve as long as their sexual orientation was not public. That was repealed during the Obama administration. Women were allowed to serve on combat aircraft and combat ships in the early 1990s — then all combat positions after a ban was lifted in 2015.

“The military has always had to confront the question of social change and the question of who would serve, how they would serve and in what capacity they would serve. These are questions that have been long-standing back to the founding in some ways, but certainly in the 20th century,” said David Kieran, distinguished chair in Military History at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia. “These are not new questions.”

Generally the answer has come down to what “the military writ large” has concluded. “‘How do we achieve our mission best?’” Kieran said. “And a lot of these things have been really hotly debated.”

Part of a larger, longer debate

Kieran offered one example: changes the Army made in the 1960s when it was dealing with a climate of racism and racial tensions. Without that, he said, “the military can’t fight the war in Vietnam effectively.”

The same considerations were given to how to address the problem of sexual harassment. Part of the answer involved what was morally right, but “the larger issue is: If soldiers are being harassed, can the Army carry out its mission effectively?”

While “it is important to see these actions as part of a longer history and a larger debate,” Kieran said, “it’s certainly also true that the current administration is moving at a far more aggressive and faster pace than we’ve seen in earlier administrations.”

Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, questioned some of the actions that Trump’s Defense Department has taken, including replacing the chairman of the joint chiefs, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr.

“He was a fine Air Force officer,” O’Hanlon said. Even if he got the job in part because of his race, “it wouldn’t be disqualifying in my book, unless he was unqualified — and he wasn’t.”

Matthew Delmont, a professor of history at Dartmouth College, said the current attitudes he is seeing toward the military suggest a misunderstanding of the armed forces and why the changes have been made.

“The military, for more than seven decades now, has been more on the leading edge in terms of figuring out how to put together an organization that tries to take advantage of the talents and capacities of all Americans,” Delmont said. Since Truman signed his executive order, “the military has moved faster and farther than almost any other organization in thinking about issues of racial equality, and then later thinking about the issues related to gender and sexuality.”

Delmont said bias, prejudice and racism remain in the military, but the armed services have done more “than a lot of corporations, universities, other organizations to try to address those head-on.”

“I wouldn’t say it was because they were particularly interested in trying to advance the social agenda,” he said. “I think they did it because they recognized you can’t have a unified fighting force if the troops are fighting each other, or if you’re actively turning away people who desire to serve their country.”

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration has halted funding to three public school districts — in Chicago, Fairfax, Va., and New York City over their diversity policies.

The Department of Education on Thursday pulled $65 million in magnet school funding from the districts 10 days after issuing them a warning, The New York Times reported.

On Sept. 16, the department sent letters to the district accusing them of violating civil rights law. The Trump administration took issue with all three districts allowing transgender students to play in sports and use the bathroom of their choice.

Federal officials also threatened to withhold funds from Chicago schools over a program specifically designed to help Black students, according to Axios.

Department of Education spokeswoman Julie Hartman said that because the districts were willing to “continue their illegal activity” means move to cut funding “falls squarely on them.”

“These are public schools, funded by hardworking American families, and parents have every right to expect an excellent education — not ideological indoctrination masquerading as ‘inclusive’ policy,” she said.

The Chicago Teachers Union said the district is “standing firm” against the Department of Education’s threats.

Chicago Public Schools “and the Board of Education made clear they will not abandon the Black Student Success Plan or roll back protections for transgender students,” a statement from the union said.

“Instead, the district is demanding due process and defending these policies as both legally required and essential for closing opportunity gaps and protecting vulnerable students.”

New York City Public Schools said it had asked the Trump administration for an extension in response to the Sept. 16 letter.

“Cutting this funding — which invests in specialized curricula, afterschool education and summer learning — harms not only the approximately 8,500 students this program currently benefits, but all of our students from underserved communities,” the district said.

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court said Thursday the Trump administration may cancel hundreds of health research grants that involve diversity, equity and inclusion or gender identity.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and set aside a Boston’s judge order that blocked the canceling of $783 million in research grants.

The justices split 5-4. Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined the court’s three liberals in dissent and said the district judge had not overstepped his authority.

The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with the administration and against federal judges in disputes over spending and staffing at federal agencies.

In the latest case, the majority agreed that Trump and his appointees may decide on how to spend health research funds allocated by Congress.

Upon taking office in January, Trump issued an executive order “ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.”

A few weeks later, the acting director of the National Institutes of Health said the agency would no longer fund “low-value and off-mission research programs, including but not limited to studies based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender identity.”

More than 1,700 grants were canceled.

Trump’s lawyers told the court NIH had terminated grants to study “Buddhism and HIV stigma in Thailand”; “intersectional, multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations”; and “anti-racist healing in nature to protect telomeres of transitional age BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] for health equity.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his counterparts from 15 Democratic-led states had sued to halt what they called an “unprecedented disruption to ongoing research.” They were joined by groups of researchers and public health advocates.

The state attorneys said their public universities were using grant money for “projects investigating heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, alcohol and substance abuse, mental-health issues, and countless other health conditions.”

They said NIH had terminated a grant for a University of California study examining how inflammation, insulin resistance, and physical activity affect Alzheimer’s disease in Black women, a group with higher rates and a more aggressive profile of the disease.

Also terminated they said was a University of Hawaiʻi study that aimed to identify genetic and biological risk factors for colorectal cancer among Native Hawaiians, a population with increased incidence and mortality rates of that disease.

In June, the Democratic state attorneys won a ruling from U.S. District Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee. He said the sudden halt to research grants violated a federal procedural law because it was “arbitrary” and poorly explained.

He said Trump had required agencies “to focus on eradicating anything that it labels as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”), an undefined enemy.” He said he had tried and failed to get a clear definition of DEI and what it entailed.

When the 1st Circuit Court refused to lift the judge’s order, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court in late July.

He noted the justices in April had set aside a similar decision from a Boston-based judge who blocked the new administration’s canceling of education grants.

The solicitor general argued that Trump’s order rescinded an executive order from President Biden in 2021 that mandated “an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda” and instructed federal agencies to “allocate resources to address the historic failure to invest sufficiently, justly, and equally in underserved communities.”

He said the new administration decided these DEI-related grants “do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

What’s the difference between Harvard and UCLA when it comes to fighting President Trump’s attacks?

It may come down to how much Gavin Newsom wants his shot at the White House.

Harvard appears to be on the brink of caving to the president’s demands around claims of antisemitism and a host of issues that most would describe as policies for inclusiveness and diversity, but which Trump derides as “woke,” whatever that means.

The storied university may pay out a huge settlement — rumored to be about $500 million — to pacify an administration increasingly bent on domination of American institutions. Armed with that success, the president has targeted UCLA by freezing more than $500 million in federal grants and demanding a payout of about $1 billion.

“We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom on this extraordinary public institution,” Newsom said recently. “We are not like some of those other institutions that have followed a different path.”

Let’s hope that’s true.

Technically, the University of California is run by the Board of Regents, of which Newsom is a member. But Newsom has so far appointed or reappointed several voting members, and you’re not going to convince me that the rest will go rogue on this decision on how to battle for the soul of UCLA, one of the most important the board will ever make.

So Newsom will be the decider, to steal a phrase from President George W. Bush.

And deciding to capitulate not only looks bad, but has terrible consequences that would dog a candidate Newsom. Not to mention crippling California as a whole.

Harvard may hold a place in the American psyche as the best of the best, but when it comes to actual impact, UCLA and the University of California system are in an entirely different league. More than 1 million Californians hold a degree from a UC, with about 200,000 currently enrolled across the system. Each year, UCLA alone contributes more than $2 billion to the local economy, and adds to the body of human knowledge with its unparalleled research in ways that money cannot quantify.

“With all respect to Harvard, the University of California dwarfs Harvard in terms of size and scale and the impact on the country,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) told me. “When you look at the UC just in terms of science and healthcare and helping to birth Silicon Valley, helping to birth the pharmaceutical industry, the UC has a cultural, educational and economic relevance unlike any other institution on the planet.”

The stakes are simply higher for California. Harvard, a private university, can not only withstand more financially, but ultimately matters less. UCLA, with great respect to UC Berkeley, is the “people’s university,” as Zev Yaroslavsky puts it. He’s a former L.A. County supervisor and current director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

“There is a difference between a Harvard and a UCLA, or UC Berkeley or UC San Diego or University of Michigan,” he said, and if the president managed to extract his pound of flesh, “it would bankrupt the No. 1 public university in the United States.”

The problem is this is a lose-lose situation. If the university settles, it is going to be forced to pay a tribute of hundreds of millions of dollars. While it may be able to lower the purposefully debilitating $1 billion Trump is demanding, it will still pay a price that damages it for years to come. But at least it will know the number.

If the university doesn’t settle, it risks years of litigation with no certainty of an eventual win.

On Tuesday, a federal court in a separate lawsuit ordered the administration to unfreeze more than $80 million in funding that is currently being withheld. But even with that win, the entire UC system remains in jeopardy of the president’s agenda, and there is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would side with California if or when the case made it that far.

But even if UCLA were to settle, what’s to stop Trump from coming back next year for another bite? As Yaroslavsky points out, give a bully your lunch money once, and they’ll keep coming back for more.

“There’s always a temptation to negotiate and work it out,” said Wiener, the state senator. “I don’t think that that’s an option here.”

Neither do I, though the business-minded decision would be to cut a deal. But we also have a larger issue to consider.

Education is resistance to authoritarianism, and crushing it has long been a goal of the far right. Point being, educated, free-thinking folks often prefer diversity and democracy.

In 2021, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech titled “The Universities are the Enemy,” which summed it up well.

“We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country,” he said. And here we are.

If the university of the fourth-largest economy on the planet signals that it can’t stand up to this, what university will risk it?

“California needs to say, ‘No, we’re not going to give him control over the UC, we’re not going to pay him taxpayer dollars as extortion,’” Wiener said. “If California can’t say no, then I don’t see who can.”

So once again, California — and Californians — are a line of defense. It’s up to us to let our leaders know that we don’t want our taxpayer-funded universities to cave to this assault, and that we expect our governor to fight.

It’s in his best interest, and ours.

David Ellison’s Skydance Media pledged to abandon all diversity, equity and inclusion programs at Paramount Global in an attempt to win government approval for its $8-billion merger.

Paramount already had scaled back diversity programs earlier this year. In a Tuesday letter to Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, Skydance said it would go further to cancel diversity efforts.

“Paramount no longer will maintain an Office of Global Inclusion and will not have any teams or individual roles focused on DEI,” Stephanie Kyoko McKinnon, Skydance general counsel, wrote in the three-page letter to Carr. The appointee of President Trump, in one of his first moves as chair, dismantled the agency’s diversity programs and called on companies to do the same.

Kyoko McKinnon said Paramount will remove “references to DEI in its public messaging, including on its websites and social media,” along with culling DEI language in “internal messaging and training materials.”

Last week, Ellison met with Carr to press his case that Skydance and its backer RedBird Capital Partners would be strong stewards of Paramount, which includes CBS, Comedy Central, MTV, BET and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, Paramount Pictures. Skydance needs Carr’s approval for the merger and the transfer of the CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family.

Skydance separately tackled persistent complaints by conservatives about alleged news bias at “60 Minutes” and other programs.

Ellison’s firm pledged to “promote transparency and increased accountability” at CBS News. The company said it would install an ombudsman, reporting to the president of Paramount, “to receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS” for at least two years.

Trump’s ire over edits of a “60 Minutes” Kamala Harris interview last fall nearly derailed Skydance’s takeover of Paramount. Carr opened an inquiry into alleged news distortion after Trump sued CBS in federal court in Texas.

Earlier this month, Paramount reached a $16-million settlement with Trump to resolve the dispute that caused deep divisions within Paramount and prompted high-level CBS departures. Trump boasted Tuesday on Truth Social that he anticipates receiving an additional $20 million worth of advertising and PSA time from the new owners.

During his July 15 meeting with Carr, Ellison underscored “Skydance’s commitment to unbiased journalism and its embrace of diverse viewpoints, principles that will ensure CBS’s editorial decision-making reflects the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers,” according to an FCC filing.

Skydance’s Kyoko McKinnon added: “We further reaffirm that, after consummation of the proposed transaction, New Paramount’s new management will ensure that the company’s array of news and entertainment programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum, consistent with the varying perspectives of the viewing audience.”

Ellison recently met with prominent journalist Bari Weiss, reportedly to discuss Skydance acquiring her center-right online publication, the Free Press, as an alternative to traditional news sites. She started the outlet, which is often critical of DEI, after quitting her job as a New York Times opinion writer, citing intolerance of her and her more conservative viewpoints.

Also last week, late-night host Stephen Colbert learned his CBS talk show would be canceled in May. CBS has said Colbert’s cancellation, which will take place in May, was “strictly financial” and not related to the merger approval. Still, conservatives and liberals have widely questioned whether Colbert’s frequent criticisms of Trump played into the decision.

Skydance has said it didn’t have a role in the Colbert decision.

Skydance isn’t the only company under pressure to ditch diversity programs to win FCC approval for a deal.

Two months ago, telecommunications giant Verizon pledged to drop diversity efforts to gain Carr’s blessing for the company’s $20-billion takeover of Frontier Communications.

Carr separately launched probes into Walt Disney Co. and Comcast Corp.’s workplace diversity efforts.

After George Floyd’s 2020 murder in Minneapolis, Paramount and other Hollywood companies vowed to hire more people of color. Such moves were cheered by many, including those cognizant of Hollywood’s troubled history with diversity.

Paramount encouraged executives to make diverse hires and promotions, and progress toward the corporate goals was one of many factors considered when calculating bonuses. That program was dismantled last year.

For years, CBS struggled to shake its prime-time sitcom formula to build shows around white men, a la “King of Queens,” “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “Two and a Half Men.”

The network broke the pattern in 2018 with “The Neighborhood,” starring Cedric the Entertainer, and procedural drama “FBI,” starring Zeeko Zaki.

CBS also championed mentorship programs for writers and directors to build a more diverse pipeline of creators. That initiative dated to 2004.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has made a priority of abolishing DEI programs.

(Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Skydance promised not to set numerical goals related to race, ethnicity or gender of job applicants.

“The company is committed to ensuring that its storytelling reflects the many audiences and communities it serves in a manner that complies with non-discrimination requirements and other applicable laws,” Kyoko McKinnon wrote.

“I am very encouraged by today’s announcements,” said Daniel Suhr, president of the conservative Center for American Rights, which filed an FCC complaint about “60 Minutes” and suggested a CBS News ombudsman. “These are important steps towards better broadcasting that serves all consumers.”

July 9 (UPI) — Barbie dolls have come a long way from the ultra-thin and super-blonde original doll. Now, in an effort to make the doll more reflective of the girls who enjoy them, Mattel has launched a Barbie with Type 1 diabetes.

“Introducing a Barbie doll with Type 1 diabetes marks an important step in our commitment to inclusivity and representation,” said Krista Berger, senior vice president of Barbie and global head of dolls. “Barbie helps shape children’s early perceptions of the world, and by reflecting medical conditions like T1D, we ensure more kids can see themselves in the stories they imagine and the dolls they love.”

To ensure that Barbie with Type 1 diabetes is truly representative of the community, Mattel partnered with Breakthrough T1D (formerly JDRF).

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune condition that causes the pancreas to make very little or no insulin, leading to dependence on insulin therapy and the risk of short and or long-term complications.

Barbie worked closely with Breakthrough T1D to ensure the authenticity of the doll. Her attributes include:

• Continuous glucose monitor: The doll wears a CGM on her arm to help manage her Type 1 diabetes. CGMs are small, wearable devices that continuously measure a person’s blood-sugar levels. To keep her CGM in place, she uses heart-shaped medical tape and she uses a phone that displays a CGM app to help track her blood sugar levels.
• Insulin pump: Barbie has an insulin pump that allows for automated insulin dosing as needed, attached to her waist.
• Blue polka dot outfit: The doll wears a stylish polka dot top and matching skirt with ruffles. The color blue and circle print are nods to the global symbols that represent diabetes awareness.
• Purse: She has a pastel blue purse, perfect for her to carry essentials, such as Type 1 diabetes supplies or snacks.

“We were thrilled when Barbie approached us to collaborate on the development of the Barbie doll with Type 1 diabetes,” said Aaron J. Kowalski, CEO of Breakthrough T1D. “I have lived with T1D since I was 13, and my brother since he was 3, so this partnership is deeply personal — it means the world to be part of bringing greater visibility to a condition that affects so many families. It’s an honor to work with a brand that shares our commitment to showing children that a life with Type 1 diabetes can be full, vibrant, and empowering.”

In continued partnership with Breakthrough T1D, Barbie donated dolls to the Breakthrough T1D 2025 Children’s Congress in Washington, D.C.

Barbie continues to include many dolls modeled after prominent people or celebrate diversity. In April, Barbie released a Le Bron James look-alike as a “Kenbassador,” and last year it released the Barbie movie on HBO Max with an American Sign Language version. In 2024, Barbie released an athletic version, and in 2023, it released a doll modeled after Cherokee leader Wilma Mankiller as part of its “Inspiring Women” dolls.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Friday that the USNS Harvey Milk will be renamed after a World War II sailor who received the Medal of Honor, stripping the ship of the name of a slain gay rights activist who served during the Korean War.

In a video posted to social media, Hegseth said he was “taking the politics out of ship naming.”

The ship’s new name will honor Navy Chief Petty Officer Oscar V. Peterson, who was awarded the highest military decoration posthumously for his actions during the 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea in the Pacific.

The decision is the latest move by Hegseth to wipe away names of ships and military bases that were given by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, which in many cases chose to honor service members who were women, minorities, from the LBGTQ community and more.

It follows earlier actions by Hegseth and President Donald Trump, a Republican, to purge all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion in the military and elsewhere.

Hegseth’s announcement comes during Pride Month — the same timing as the Pentagon’s campaign to force transgender troops out of the U.S. military.

“We’re not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists,” said Hegseth, who earlier this month ordered Navy Secretary John Phelan to put together a small team to rename the USNS Harvey Milk replenishment oiler.

He said Peterson’s “spirit of self-sacrifice and concern for his crewmates was in keeping with the finest traditions of the Navy.”

When Hegseth announced the decision to rename the ship, officials defended it as an effort to align with Trump and Hegseth’s objectives to “re-establish the warrior culture.”

Peterson served on the USS Neosho, which also was an oiler. The ship was damaged during the Battle of the Coral Sea, and even though Peterson was injured, he managed to close the bulkhead stop valves to keep the ship operational. He died of his wounds.

The Navy in 1943 named an escort ship after Peterson. The USS Peterson served for more than two decades and was decommissioned in June 1965.

The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 by then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights.

Harvey Milk, who was portrayed by Sean Penn in an Oscar-winning 2008 movie, served for four years in the Navy before he was forced out for being gay. He later became one of the first openly gay candidates elected to public office, in San Francisco. He was assassinated in 1978 by a disgruntled former city supervisor.

Baldor writes for the Associated Press.

Like many of his predecessors, President Trump has affirmed the importance of historically Black colleges and universities, hailing them as a pathway to careers and a better life for students in the U.S.

The schools have not faced cuts to federal grants of the kind that have rocked Ivy League schools Trump has blasted as hotbeds of “wokeness” and antisemitism, and the president has said HBCUs’ core federal funding is not at risk.

But that is not to say it’s a comfortable time for HBCUs’ leaders. As the Trump administration cracks down elsewhere on programs to support underrepresented students, the colleges have been expressing gratitude for the administration’s recognition while mostly keeping quiet on its sweeping attacks against diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“HBCUs, in general, I don’t believe are in a position to be adamantly and vociferously opposed to these attacks, but deep down we all know what’s going on,” said Deron Snyder, an alumnus of and professor at Howard University. “It’s just how much can you actually say without fear of retribution.”

An executive order signed by Trump in April recognizes HBCUs and pledges his administration’s support. It calls for an annual White House conference, private-sector partnerships and an advisory board with the Education Department, but it does not guarantee any new federal funding.

The order won praise from some Black universities, including Howard University and Morgan State University, as well as organizations that work with HBCUs. Harry Williams, president of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said the order should serve as a call to action for corporations, foundations and lawmakers to redouble support for HBCUs and their students.

But the colleges’ leaders have said little on other administration actions that are out of line with the mission of HBCUs, which were founded to educate formerly enslaved people.

The administration’s campaign against DEI has encouraged restrictions on classroom discussions around racism and led to cuts in federal research grants. As it threatens to cut federal funding from schools, some colleges have closed diversity offices and ended other programs to support students of color.

For HBCUs, the moment is reminiscent of the era decades ago when Black colleges were compelled to argue that school segregation was wrong but also needed to maintain government support for their institutions, said Marybeth Gasman, a Rutgers University professor who has studied the history of HBCUs.

Black college leaders “don’t want HBCUs to be under the umbrella of DEI, but I don’t know any HBCU president who would agree with the way that Donald Trump is dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion efforts,” she said.

The Trump administration has cut federal research grants for several universities, pressuring them to comply with his agenda. Since Harvard University refused the administration’s demands for changes to its policies and leadership, the government has slashed $2.6 billion in funding, which the Ivy League school has described as retaliation.

In an interview in April, Trump told NewsNation that Black colleges and universities should not be concerned about losing their funding.

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), vice chair of the House HBCU caucus, said there has long been bipartisan support for the colleges. But she said there will be new vigilance of their federal support in light of the administration’s record on programs serving minorities.

Sewell said it is also alarming to see the administration move to dismantle the Education Department.

“We’ll be pushing back fiercely against that and do all that we can to make sure that our HBCUs get the money that they deserve,” Sewell said. She said the Congressional Black Caucus has been paying close attention to the Republicans’ funding plan for a program that supports 19 HBCUs through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Williams, of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said HBCUs have exceeded all expectations of the opportunities they have provided for underrepresented students. He said he is grateful for the administration’s support, but when asked about its actions toward diversity initiatives, he said the administration has challenges it is working through.

“Hard work pays off and education pays off. That’s why these institutions are so critical to this country,” he said. “The realities of those other challenges that we’re grappling with right now in terms of what the administration is dealing with as it relates to their priorities, we were just pleased to know that they recognize the importance of what these institutions have done for the country will continue to do in a very deliberate way.”

Mumphrey writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Collin Binkley and Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.

SAN ANSELMO, Calif. — It’s hard to miss Brian Colbert. It’s not just his burly 6-foot-4 frame, his clean-shaven head or the boldly patterned, brightly colored Hawaiian shirts he’s adopted as an unofficial uniform.

Colbert is one of just a small number of Black people who live in wealthy, woodsy and very white Marin County — and the first Black supervisor elected since the county’s founding more than 175 years ago.

He didn’t lean into race, or history, as he campaigned in the fall. He didn’t have to. “As a large Black man,” he said, his physicality and the barrier-breaking nature of his candidacy were self-evident.

Rather, Colbert won after knocking, by his count, on 20,000 doors, wearing out several pairs of size 15 shoes and putting parochial concerns, such as wildfire prevention, disaster preparedness and flood control, at the center of his campaign. He continues, during these early months in office, to focus on a garden variety of municipal issues: housing, traffic, making local government more accessible and responsive.

That’s not to say, however, that Colbert doesn’t have deeply felt thoughts on the precedent his election set, or the significance of the lived experience he brings to office — different from most in this privileged slice of the San Francisco Bay Area — at a time President Trump is turning his back on civil rights and his administration treats diversity, equity and inclusion as though they were four-letter words.

“I think of the challenges, the indignities that my grandparents suffered on a daily basis” living under Jim Crow, Colbert said over lunch recently in his hometown of San Anselmo. He carefully chose his words, at one point resting an index finger on his temple to signal a pause as he gathered his thoughts.

Colbert recalled visits to Savannah, Ga., where he attended Baptist church services with his mother’s parents.

“I remember looking at the faces,” Colbert said, “and to me they were the faces of African Americans waiting for death, because they were aware and knew of the opportunities that had been denied to them simply because of the color of their skin. But what gave them hope was the belief their kids and grandkids would have a better life. I am a product of that hope, in so many ways.”

Colbert, 57, grew up in Bethel, Conn., about 60 miles northeast of New York City. Residents tried to prevent his parents — an accountant and a stay-at-home mom — from moving into the overwhelmingly white community. Neighbors circulated a petition urging the owners to not sell their home to the Black couple. They did so anyway.

Colbert went on to earn degrees in political science and acting, public policy and law. He traveled the world with his wife, a Syrian American, practiced law on Wall Street, ran a chocolate company and a small tech firm. He lived for 3½ years in Turkey, where he taught international law and political science at a private university.

In 2007, when the couple returned to the U.S., they set their sights on the Bay Area, drawn by the weather, the natural beauty and the entrepreneurial spirit that drew countless opportunity seekers before them. (Colbert started wearing Hawaiian shirts on the Silicon Valley conference circuit, after being mistaken one too many times for a security guard.)

In 2013, Colbert, his wife and their daughter settled in San Anselmo, a charmy tree-lined community about 15 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The relatively short commute to San Francisco, where he manages a medical concierge service, the quality schools and the vast open space were big attractions — though Colbert knew he and his family would stand out, just as he had in Bethel.

San Anselmo, with its rugged hillsides and red-brick downtown, has about 13,000 residents. The Black population is less than 2%. But Colbert’s extensive travels and life overseas convinced him that people “on a certain level [are] the same” everywhere — “warm, welcoming, kind, generous, helpful.”

He had an abiding interest in policy and public service, so in 2013 Colbert joined the city’s Economic Development Council. Four years later, he was elected to the Town Council. He served seven years, one in the rotating position of mayor, before running for the nonpartisan Board of Supervisors.

Inevitably, he encountered racism along the way. There were threatening phone calls and emails. He got the occasional side-eye as he canvassed door-to-door in all-white neighborhoods. For the most part, however, “people were incredibly pleasant” and campaigning “was no more challenging … than it would be [for] any candidate.”

On a recent sunny afternoon, Colbert was greeted heartily — “Hey, Brian!” “Hey, supervisor!” — as he strode past Town Hall to Imagination Park, a gift the city’s most famous resident, filmmaker George Lucas, bequeathed along with life-sized statues of Yoda and Indiana Jones.

These are fraught times. The reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd has given way to a backlash and a president who disdains efforts at equality, complains of anti-white prejudice and purges powerful Black men and women in the name of a mythical colorblind society.

Given a chance to speak directly to Trump, what would Colbert — a Democrat — say?

“Mr. President, thank you for your service,” he began. “Being in public offices is hard and difficult.”

He paused. Several beats passed. A waiter cleared away dishes.

“I would encourage you to change your tone, certainly publicly, and broaden your perspective and embrace those who might have a different perspective than you,” Colbert went on. “Many people have come to this country and they’ve added value. They’ve made this country for the better.

“Remember those who don’t necessarily have easy access to power. Remember those who are struggling. Focus on those who are most vulnerable and are highly dependent on the government to help them through a short amount of time. I mean, the American experiment is incredible. Keep that in mind. A little empathy. Simple acts of kindness. Place yourself into someone else’s shoes.

“Thank you, Mr. President.”