By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge recently released the written details of a ruling that rebuked the Trump administration’s cancellation of National Institutes of Health grants, deeming the action illegal. Despite limitations imposed by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the court maintains that the government’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. The ruling highlights that the government failed to establish a clear justification for the grant cancellations, leading to officials canceling grants without evaluating their scientific merit. This lack of clear policy and subsequent attempts to retroactively justify the actions prompted several officials to resign.
Read the original article here
Judge: You can’t ban DEI grants without bothering to define DEI. The crux of the matter is this: you can’t logically prohibit something – in this case, DEI-related grants – without first clearly defining what that “something” actually *is*. It’s like trying to enforce a rule against using a word without specifying which word is off-limits. It’s fundamentally unclear and unenforceable. And this isn’t just about semantics; it’s about the very foundation of fairness and due process. How can you ensure someone adheres to a standard if that standard is nebulous, open to subjective interpretation, or simply undefined?
This situation, as the judge correctly pointed out, is a classic case of the cart before the horse. The legal argument is that you can’t just toss around a term like “DEI” as a catch-all to block grant funding. It’s not enough to simply say, “We’re against DEI.” You have to specify what activities, policies, or approaches are being targeted. Without that specificity, the ban is essentially arbitrary and could be used to stifle any efforts toward promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. The real problem is when “DEI” becomes a synonym for anything the people in charge don’t like. It’s the legal equivalent of yelling “Objection!” without actually stating the grounds for the objection.
This lack of definition leads to significant confusion and potential abuse. It opens the door for broad interpretations that could unintentionally harm or unfairly target individuals and organizations. When there is no precise definition, people may be penalized for actions that were not previously considered problematic, or for simply using a word that someone in power doesn’t approve of. It creates an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear, discouraging people from engaging in legitimate activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. DEI, in this context, becomes a code word for, well, whatever the speaker wants it to be.
The motivations behind such vague terminology are also quite transparent. Some view DEI as a way to undermine established power structures, others see it as an attempt to impose ideologies that they disagree with. For some, DEI is simply a label, a scapegoat to be blamed for a vast array of societal ills. The issue is that the same people who are decrying DEI are also likely the ones who haven’t defined it, making it difficult to know what policies would violate this undefined ideal. Because of this vagueness, the term “DEI” becomes a convenient tool, used to criticize initiatives or even individuals, without being held to any standard of proof.
The absence of a clear definition also makes it impossible to determine whether grants are truly in violation. If you’re blocking funds based on the use of a term, you must define what the term means in the context of grant application and then apply that definition to the application. Without a proper definition, the enforcement of the ban relies solely on individual and, likely, biased interpretations. It opens the door to arbitrary decisions and the potential for discrimination. This lack of clarity is dangerous, as it allows for the potential suppression of any activity that promotes diversity.
The irony, of course, is that those who criticize DEI often struggle to define it themselves, even as they claim to oppose it. They may say it involves lowering standards, or promoting unqualified individuals over qualified ones. But, in reality, DEI is more about making opportunities available to a wider group of people. It’s about recognizing that talent comes in many forms and that diverse perspectives lead to innovation and creativity. While some may portray it as a threat, DEI is fundamentally about fairness and the pursuit of excellence.
It’s worth noting that this isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a fundamental question of fairness. It boils down to treating people in a non-discriminatory manner, which is what DEI is meant to promote. Ironically, the lack of definition often points to deeper issues. If the goal is to exclude groups of people by using vague terms, the law shouldn’t allow it. If such a thing were allowed to stand, it would undermine the basic principles of justice and equality. The court’s decision to reject this ill-defined ban is a win for clarity, fairness, and the rule of law.