Inclusivity in higher education: Where do Trump and Harris stand while it comes to diversity and equity in college campuses?

Former President Trump and Vice President Harris.

As the United States approaches the 2024 elections on November 5, two titans are vying for the presidency: former President Donald Trump, seeking a comeback, and Vice President Kamala Harris, poised to shatter glass ceilings as the first female president. This election unfolds at a critical juncture for the nation, particularly in higher education, where diversity and equity policies are not just topics of debate but crucial to shaping the academic landscape for millions of students.
The urgency of inclusivity in higher education has never been more pronounced, given the nation’s rapidly diversifying demographic. Academic institutions face mounting pressure to ensure equitable support for all students. However, the starkly contrasting visions of Trump and Harris reveal divergent paths to tackle these pressing issues. Here, we examine the current disparities in higher education and the stark differences between Trump and Harris views on inclusivity while analyzing their potential impacts on campus communities.
Pressing issues of inclusivity in higher education
The U.S. higher education system has long faced significant barriers to inclusivity, affecting both student enrollment and faculty representation. These disparities in enrollment and faculty representation illustrate the broader systemic issues that continue to plague higher education, particularly in STEM fields.
Underrepresentation of Women and Minorities: According to Physics Today, a magazine published by the American Institute of Physics, women accounted for only 24% of the total bachelor’s degrees conferred in Physics in 2021. This figure highlights a significant gender disparity. Similarly, the low representation of Hispanic (12%) and Black (2%) students and faculty indicates a lack of diversity in these fields, which can hinder innovation and reduce the variety of perspectives in academic discussions.
Racial Disparities in Faculty Representation: Racial disparities in faculty representation are a longstanding issue in U.S. academia, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. For instance, Physics Today reported that in 2021, only 2% of tenured positions in physics and astronomy departments were held by Black or African American faculty, highlighting significant underrepresentation. Similar gaps exist in other fields: A 2020 report by the American Sociological Association found that Black faculty accounted for just 5% of tenured positions in sociology, despite Black individuals comprising around 13% of the U.S. population. Moreover, the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) noted in 2021 that Black faculty in U.S. medical schools made up only 3.6% of all full-time faculty, showing consistent underrepresentation across disciplines. These figures underscore the challenges that institutions face in fostering diversity among faculty, which affects mentorship, representation, and academic innovation.
Delayed Tenure for Minority Faculty: Research indicates that Black and Asian faculty members receive tenure later than their white counterparts. Studies show that they often experience longer pathways to tenure, driven by barriers like bias in evaluation processes, unequal access to mentorship, and added responsibilities for diversity work. These faculty members frequently carry extra burdens, such as serving on diversity committees or supporting minority students, which, while essential, may slow their own research progress, impacting tenure timelines. This sordid reality reflects systemic obstacles that many underrepresented groups face in academia, contributing to a less inclusive environment.
Limited Access to Resources: Challenges faced by minority and underserved communities often include limited access to financial resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities, which are critical for academic success and career advancement.

SOURCE: Physics Today
Inclusivity through the lens of Donald Trump
Donald Trump’s education agenda has consistently aimed to reduce government intervention and regulatory oversight. His administration previously worked to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in education, arguing that they introduce bias and restrict free speech. A cornerstone of his vision includes dismantling affirmative action programs and cutting federal funding for institutions perceived to engage in “radical civics” or teachings like critical race theory.
Rolling back Trans, LGBTQ+ rights: Former President Donald Trump has pledged to roll back recent policies that protect the rights of transgender students, which were implemented under President Biden’s administration. Specifically, Trump has opposed measures that allow transgender students to use bathrooms and facilities that align with their gender identity, arguing that such policies infringe upon others’ rights. Furthermore, he has also voiced opposition to broader LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, which promote safe, supportive environments for LGBTQ+ students in schools and on college campuses. These include training for staff on LGBTQ+ issues and guidance on addressing bullying incidents, preferred name and pronoun policies and more. Trump claims that these policies disrupt traditional values and has promised to reverse guidelines that mandate respect for students’ chosen names, pronouns, and gender identities.
Cutting funds for DEI: Former President Donald Trump has signaled that, if re-elected, he would withdraw federal funding from educational institutions that actively promote DEI initiatives. He claims that DEI programs promote specific ideological perspectives that, in his view, infringe on free speech and prioritize certain groups over others. By potentially targeting funding for DEI, Trump aims to curb programs that provide support and resources for marginalized students, such as initiatives aimed at reducing racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ disparities. These programs often include training on cultural competency, bias reduction, and inclusive teaching practices, all intended to create safer, more supportive learning environments.
Critics vs. Advocates:Critics argue that Trump’s policies would undermine decades of progress toward making campuses more inclusive. The American Council on Education has highlighted concerns that stripping protections could exacerbate disparities, particularly for LGBTQ+ and minority students. However, some conservative groups support these measures, believing they prioritize merit and free speech.
Inclusivity in higher education: Kamala Harris’ perspective
Vice President Kamala Harris has emphasized strengthening DEI efforts and expanding access to higher education for marginalized groups. She aims to build on the Biden administration’s progress, particularly through investments in minority-serving institutions and protections for LGBTQ+ students.
Support for HBCUs and Minority Institutions: Harris has called for increased funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges. She also advocates for scholarships targeting underrepresented communities.
Affirmative Action and Inclusive Curricula: Harris supports affirmative action in college admissions, emphasizing the need for diverse student bodies and faculty. She has also promoted inclusive educational materials to ensure diverse perspectives are represented in academic programs.
Critics vs. Advocates:Proponents of Harris’ policies argue that they address systemic inequalities and promote a richer educational experience for all students. Organizations like the NAACP have endorsed her approach, highlighting the benefits of a diverse academic environment. However, critics worry about potential backlash and legal challenges, particularly from conservative states that oppose affirmative action.
Inclusivity in higher education: What are the key differences between Harris and Trump’s approaches?
Affirmative Action: Trump seeks to eliminate race-based admissions policies, contending that they disadvantage deserving white and Asian American students. In contrast, Harris defends affirmative action, arguing that it is necessary to create equal opportunities and address historical injustices. The impact of these differing views could significantly affect college demographics and access for underprivileged students.
Funding for minority institutions: Trump has repeatedly proposed cuts to education funding, including programs that benefit minority institutions. Harris, on the other hand, advocates for increased investment to support these schools and expand resources for underserved students.
Campus climate initiatives: Trump’s policies could lead to a rollback of anti-bias training and diversity workshops. In contrast, Harris champions these initiatives as essential tools for fostering a welcoming and inclusive campus environment.

Potential impact on college campuses
Short-term Implications: If Trump’s policies are enacted, universities may experience an immediate reduction in DEI funding and a chilling effect on efforts to promote diversity. Faculty and student protests could arise, and legal battles over transgender rights and affirmative action may escalate. Conversely, Harris’ policies would likely lead to expanded programs for minority students and increased federal oversight to ensure inclusivity.
Long-term Implications: Over time, the effects of each candidate’s vision could shape the American workforce and economic landscape. A lack of diversity in higher education could limit the innovation and creativity essential for a competitive global market. On the other hand, Harris’ inclusive policies could foster a more equitable society but face challenges from conservative lawmakers and shifting public opinion.
Final Words
The 2024 presidential election presents two contrasting visions for the future of inclusivity in higher education. Trump’s approach emphasizes rolling back DEI efforts and minimizing government involvement, while Harris advocates for increased protections and funding for marginalized groups. As voters head to the polls, the stakes for higher education have never been higher. Students, educators, and policymakers must consider the profound impact these policies could have on campuses across America. Inclusivity in higher education is not just about fairness but about preparing a diverse generation to tackle the world’s challenges. As the debates rage, the future of academic diversity and equity lies in the hands of voters, making civic engagement crucial in shaping the landscape of American education.