A newly-published report from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law unveils significant challenges facing LGBTQ+ faculty in higher education. Nearly half of those surveyed are considering relocating or leaving their academic roles due to anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, laws. According to the report, these laws, already enacted in nine states and under consideration in many others, are drastically reshaping these academics’ professional and personal landscapes.

Specifically, states like Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have passed legislation affecting higher education DEI efforts. These laws vary significantly in their specifics but share common restrictions, including prohibitions on mandatory DEI training for faculty, limitations on funding for DEI initiatives, and bans on certain curriculum content deemed divisive, often targeting teachings related to critical race theory and gender studies. Conservatives have aimed at inclusion efforts, deeming them “woke” and thus unpalatable.

The study indicates that 48 percent of LGBTQ+ faculty members have considered moving to another state to avoid the repercussions of these laws, with 20 percent actively making plans to relocate. Additionally, 36 percent are pondering a departure from academia altogether, highlighting the extensive impact of these legislative measures.

The Williams Institute’s research involved 84 LGBTQ+ faculty members, predominantly from public universities, shedding light on the negative consequences of anti-DEI legislation on their work and well-being. The laws have increased scrutiny and limitations on academic freedom, affecting what can be taught and researched. This scrutiny has manifested in various ways: 14 percent of those surveyed have been asked by administrators to justify their DEI-related activities, 12 percent have seen a drop in course enrollments, and 10 percent have received threats from students for allegedly violating these laws.

The emotional and physical toll on LGBTQ+ faculty is noteworthy, with a substantial number reporting detrimental effects on their mental and physical health due to the prevailing academic climate.

In response to these restrictive environments, about one-third of the LGBTQ+ faculty members have increased their involvement in advocacy and activism, both on and off campus. This proactive engagement includes incorporating more comprehensive discussions and readings into their courses to provide students with a broader context for LGBTQ+ content, adapting to the constraints imposed by the legislation.

The potential long-term effects of a widespread departure of LGBTQ+ faculty include diminished academic focus on LGBTQ+ issues, reduced representation in educational settings, and a lack of mentorship for students on these topics. Such outcomes could lead to a generation less informed about and sensitive to LGBTQ+ concerns.

Community and advocacy groups have expressed significant concern over the findings, highlighting the need for immediate action to reassess these discriminatory laws. The report also points out that even in states without specific anti-DEI laws, the national political climate influenced by these policies contributes to a conservative shift on campuses and in communities, exacerbating the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ faculty.