Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The diversity practices at three private colleges are under the microscope of Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita as he investigates potential discrimination and looks for any violations of new policies and laws against diversity, equity and inclusion.
Earlier this summer, Rokita’s office sent letters to the University of Notre Dame, Butler University and DePauw University—all nonprofit, private schools—asking leaders to submit answers to several questions concerning the schools’ DEI-related programs, enrollment practices, and goals.
Dissatisfied with the answers he received from Notre Dame and Butler, Rokita has filed formal civil investigative demands with those schools, requiring the release of more information. It’s a formal step that often precedes the filing of a civil lawsuit.
“Treating people differently based on skin color has no place in our state,” he said in a news release earlier this month announcing the demands. “The universities’ responses to our investigations will determine whether further action is needed to vindicate Indiana’s commitment to equality.”
Rokita’s office said a review of DePauw’s response to the attorney general’s earlier inquiry is ongoing, and as of Aug. 22, the school has not received a civil investigative demand from his office.
All three schools said they do not engage in unlawful discrimination.
Legal changes
Rokita’s actions come about two years after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the high court struck down race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders requiring disciplinary action against universities who fail to follow federal law regarding such race-based programs.
In January, Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed an executive order eliminating DEI practices in state government, replacing it instead with MEI efforts – merit, excellence, and innovation. The order directs state agencies to review their DEI departments and policies for compliance with the decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Many of the questions in the letters to Indiana colleges ask what actions the schools have taken to increase the diversity of its students and faculty and what guidance the schools have issued to its staff concerning its DEI goals.
Rokita says the inquiries concern the universities’ compliance with state and federal civil rights laws required under the terms of the universities’ nonprofit status granted in Indiana law.
“…A nonprofit university that engages in racial discrimination is not ‘organized for a public or charitable purpose’ within the meaning of Indiana law, Ind. Code § 23-17-2-23(1), and any racial discrimination in which it engages represents an unlawful ‘abuse [of] authority,’ Ind. Code § 23-17-24-1(a),” the letters read.
Other questions in the letters ask about specific programs or initiatives at the schools. Rokita’s office points out that publicly available materials from Notre Dame’s 2033 Strategic Framework, a 2023 document that lays out the university’s goals for the next decade, emphasize the work of campus organizations like the Initiative on Race and Resilience.
The office asked Notre Dame to provide information on how it determines who is considered a member of an underrepresented group “for purposes of implementing its 2033 Strategic Framework.” The letter further inquires what actions the school takes to increase the number of Latino faculty at the university, given the school “touts” its success in adding more Latino faculty.
From Butler, Rokita’s office asks for information on the schools’ Strategic Direction and Strategic Priorities documents, which act similarly to Notre Dame’s framework, outlining how Butler can adapt its practices to better serve students. The university laid out five priorities, one of which specifies creating “an intentionally diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning and working environment.”
And at DePauw, Rokita’s office is scrutinizing its connections with the University of Southern California’s Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.
USC’s Race and Equity Center was established to conduct research and offer resources on how to advance racial equity at K-12 and post-secondary schools, USC’s website states.
According to a November 2020 post on DePauw’s website, the university began collaborating with the center in 2020, participating in several meetings focused on aspects of racial equity and gaining access to the center’s resources and tools, like case studies and conversational scripts focused on the topics.
DePauw’s Division of Institutional Equity appears to still be active, according to the university’s website.
The division’s webpage quotes the school’s 2027 Strategic Plan to, “be an institution where all students—regardless of background, identity, or ideology—who desire to learn with us are welcomed, supported, and have access to DePauw’s rich academic and social opportunities.”
Changing policy across the country
In the years following the decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., schools across the country have implemented several changes to their existing diversity policies and state legislatures have imposed new rules on instructional content.
In Indiana, some professors are fighting recent state legislation requiring college faculty to teach from a variety of political and ideological frameworks to, “foster a culture of free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity.”
Since 2021, more than 150 anti-DEI bills have been introduced nationwide, according to 2025 data from EdTrust. Of that number, 38 bills have been signed into law, while 11 have failed. The rest are either under consideration or are inactive.
In March, the governor of Ohio signed into law a bill that requires institutions of higher education to publicly post their course syllabi online and publicly declare statements of commitment to “educate students by means of free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry to seek the truth.”
It also prohibits the continuation of existing DEI offices and the use of DEI in job descriptions.
Earlier this month, President Trump issued a memorandum requiring enhanced reporting requirements to ensure institutions of higher education that receive federal financial assistance are transparent in their admission practices.
In May, Indiana University announced that it shuttered its Office of the Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion to comply with law. The school also announced that it transitioned its Office of Institutional Equity to become the Office of Civil Rights Compliance, “which more accurately reflects its work and mission to oversee the university’s compliance with federal civil rights laws,” according to IU Today.
According to a 2025 study by EAB, an organization that offers education solutions to K-12 schools and colleges, several leaders in higher education have yet to make sweeping organizational changes to their schools’ DEI-related policies. Because the foundation of inclusion is so ingrained in higher education, leaders are looking to recalibrate their schools’ practices, rather than retreat, EAB reported.
Civil demands on Indiana schools
This month, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office pressed harder on two of the state’s private universities for information on their DEI practices.
On August 6 and 13, Rokita submitted civil investigative demands, known as CIDs, to Notre Dame and Butler, asking the schools to give the office more information on their DEI policies and practices.
In the demands, Rokita thanked the schools for their responses to his initial inquiry but said they failed to address “in any meaningful way” the concerns raised in his earlier inquiries.
“It is not an adequate response to my inquiry to offer an assurance that Butler complies with civil rights laws but not to produce any of the materials requested by my letter that would allow for an independent assessment by my office of the University’s compliance,” Rokita wrote to the Indianapolis school.
Butler said it stands by the response it submitted on June 27, “which affirmed that Butler University does not treat individuals differently based on race or ethnicity.”
“We are committed to ensuring that our policies and practices comply with federal and state laws. Butler remains committed to our founding mission of providing equal access to education for all and fostering a learning environment where every student has the opportunity to succeed,” said Mark Apple, Butler’s director of strategic communication. “At this time, we will not be offering further comment while we continue to assess the scope and implications of the CID.”
Notre Dame said it had received Rokita’s CID and would respond to it in due course.
“Notre Dame strives to treat every member of our community in a manner consistent with our firmly held Catholic beliefs. At the heart of these beliefs is the recognition that we are all children of God, deserving of dignity and respect from one another,”said Erin Blasko, the school’s associate director of media relations.
“We are likewise committed to the rule of law,” she added. “Accordingly, Notre Dame does not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.”
While DePauw has not received a CID, it also has maintained that it does not discriminate.
“Guided by our institutional values of integrity and our commitment to excellence, we uphold high ethical standards and do not engage in unlawful discrimination in our admissions and hiring practices,” said Sarah Steinkamp, the school’s vice president for communications and strategy and chief of staff.
“We recruit and retain talented students, faculty and staff who enrich our small and caring campus community,” she added, “and, in turn, are enriched by it, carrying forward DePauw’s tradition of supporting and creating positive changes in Indiana and throughout the world.”
The CIDs received by Notre Dame and Butler typically follow a more informal request for information, such as in this situation, and often precede civil court action.
Under state law, attorney generals have a broad scope of reasons for issuing CIDs.
Indiana Code states that the attorney general can submit a demand if they have reasonable cause to believe that a person or entity may be in possession of documents that could show if they’re in violation of certain laws.
Recipients of CIDS typically have around 30 to 45 days to respond. During this time, both parties can discuss what information is needed to fulfill the request and how the information can be sent to the AG’s office.
The parties can also negotiate an extension of time to fulfill the request.•
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.