First, Donald Trump and right-wing extremists attacked government trainings on racism and sexism. Then the far right tried to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism. Next, they banned books about BIPOC and LGBTQ lives. Today, the extreme right’s latest attack is aimed at dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

In 2023, the far right introduced at least 65 bills to limit DEI in higher education in 25 states and the U.S. Congress. Eight bills became law. If this assault on our constitutional rights feels familiar, that’s because it is. It was last seen in 2020 when Trump-aligned politicians fought to pass unconstitutional laws aimed at censoring student and faculty speech about race, racism, sex and sexism. The ACLU challenged these laws in three states, but today, anti-DEI efforts are the new frontier in the fight to end the erasure of marginalized communities.

DEI programs recruit and retain BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and other underrepresented faculty and students to repair decades of discriminatory policies and practices that excluded them from higher education. The far right, however, claims that DEI programs universally promote undeserving people who only advance because they check a box. Anti-DEI activists like Christopher Rufo consistently frame their attack as a strike against “identity politics,” and have weaponized the term “DEI” to reference any ideas and policies they disagree with, especially those that address systemic racism or sexism.

This attack on DEI is part of a larger backlash against racial justice efforts that ignited after the 2020 killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. At the time, workplaces, schools, and other institutions announced plans to expand DEI efforts and to incorporate anti-racism principles in their communities. In response, far-right activists, led by Rufo and supported by right-wing think tanks such as The Manhattan Institute, The Claremont Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, went on the offensive.

Leveraging Fox News and other mainstream media outlets, Rufo and his supporters sought to manufacture hysteria around the inclusion of critical race theory in schools and workplaces. After a 2020 appearance on Fox News where Rufo misrepresented the nature of federal trainings on oppression, white privilege, and intersectionality as indoctrination of critical race theory in our public spaces, Rufo convinced former President Trump to end federal DEI training. Rufo’s goal was to limit discourse, instruction, and research that refuted the false assertion that racism is not real in America – and he succeeded. Just three weeks later, Trump issued Executive Order 13950, which banned federal trainings on systemic racism and sexism. This Executive Order served as the template for most of the educational gag orders, or bills introduced to limit instruction on systemic sexism and racism in 40 states, 20 of which are now law.

The ACLU has consistently opposed efforts to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism, including in Florida where some of the most egregious attacks on DEI, critical race theory and inclusive education have been mounted. Following the far right’s “anti-wokeism” playbook, in April 2022, Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which seeks to ban training or instruction on systemic racism and sexism in workplaces, K-12 schools, and higher education. The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and our co-counsel challenged the law, claiming it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on instructors and students in higher education, and fails to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. A federal judge has blocked it from being enforced in public universities across the state.

Lessons Learned from Our Classroom Censorship Win Against Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act

Here’s what the judge’s order could mean for challenges to censorship efforts nationwide.

Instead of ceasing to censor free speech, the far right pivoted to target DEI programs. For example, Florida passed Senate Bill 266 in April 2023. This law would expand the Stop W.O.K.E. Act’s prohibition on training and instruction on racism and sexism, seeking to eliminate DEI programs and heavily restrict certain college majors related to DEI. Just last month, the Florida State Board of Education moved forward with regulations to limit the use of public funds for DEI efforts in Florida’s 28 state colleges. The State Board also replaced the Principles of Sociology course, which was previously required, with an American History course to avoid “radical woke ideologies.”

Led by the same far-right leaders, including Rufo and various think-tanks, these anti-DEI efforts utilize the same methods as the attack on critical race theory. They represent yet another attempt to re-whitewash America’s history of racial subjugation, and to reverse efforts to pursue racial justice—or any progress at all. Anti-DEI rhetoric has been used to invalidate immunological research supporting the COVID-19 vaccine, conclusions by economists on mass migration, and even the January 6 insurrection. But these false claims are not what DEI is about. By definition equity means levelling the playing field so qualified people from underrepresented backgrounds have a fair chance to succeed. We cannot let a loud fringe movement convince us otherwise.

In its attacks on DEI, the far right undermines not only racial justice efforts, but also violates our right to free speech and free association. Today, the ACLU is determined to push back on anti-DEI efforts just as we fought efforts to censor instruction on systemic racism and sexism from schools.

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned its prior holdings on affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions practices in most colleges and universities and, consequently, restricting the ability of schools to address systemic racial inequalities that persist in higher education. But the court’s decision was left with one exception: military service academies. Now, the same group that brought to the Supreme Court the case that overturned affirmative action, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), is suing the U.S. Naval Academy and West Point, alleging in two separate lawsuits that the military academies’ use of race in their admissions processes is unconstitutional.

Affirmative action at service academies is essential for confronting our military’s discriminatory history, which continues to impact service members of color. The ACLU, the ACLU of Maryland, and NYCLU, along with our partners NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the National Association of Black Military Women, filed two amicus briefs in New York and Maryland in support of affirmative action, highlighting the experiences of people of color, specifically the unique experience of Black women in the military.

We recently spoke with three veterans who are members of the National Association of Black Military Women. They shared insight into their personal experiences and challenges within the military — from facing unachievable uniform requirements to highlighting the importance of representation. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

ACLU: Could you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?

Veteran Todd: I was working a few jobs, going to school, and times were tough. This was a way to get out of Detroit and also do something really amazing and scary. It was very important for me to take some time to find myself, grow up a little bit, explore the world, and see what the American dream was about. I’ve always been in jobs that were geared towards service. For me, it was just important to learn to take care of myself and then taking care of others just came naturally.

ACLU: How important is it to have military leadership that represents the diversity of service members?

Veteran Todd: Having a role model, mentorship, and someone who is culturally competent of what African Americans go through, while also allowing others to get some exposure to that type of leadership, is important in addressing discrimination. It definitely affects morale and the cohesion of the group to walk into a room and look around, and no one looks like you at your job, at a hearing, or at a base. It’s also super important when you think about retention and recruitment. If I am not comfortable or I’m not in a place where I feel like I’m in alignment with who I’m surrounded by, it’s really tough. You don’t feel accepted, welcomed, or valued. The other part of this is seeing what’s possible, and being able to learn from each other and what their experiences were. Seeing those positive examples and building credibility and trust with people that are not like you – that exposure opens up your mind.

ACLU: The military imposes certain uniform requirements that can disproportionately impact people of color. Did the uniform requirements affect your time in the military?

Veteran Todd: That was a big deal for me in the military. When it came to uniforms, the regulations were not put in place for us. It was put in place for people with hair that could conform to those regulations. Our hair doesn’t do that. We have to do a little more extra. I was the yeoman that kept instructions in my pocket because they were up for interpretation. I used to get stopped all the time about my hair. There was this one time where I was actually put at attention by a superior. He said I was distracting the sailors and needed to do something about myself. I didn’t have any makeup on, my hair was natural, and I had on overalls and big boots, so I didn’t know what he wanted me to change. I looked around at every other Black girl on that ship; their hair was shaved off. Then I looked at some of our counterparts who had flipped up hair and all this extra stuff. Were they getting pulled to the side? Absolutely not. I’m really glad that they began to change some of those regulations.

ACLU: Could you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?

Retired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs: It was rewarding. It was awesome and it was tough. I joined the military because I wanted to do more for my community. I felt the need to serve others and in my mind, the best way was to serve my country. I would be serving everybody by joining the military.

ACLU: Our amicus highlights that people of color collectively make up as much as 37 percent of the enlisted ranks, but only 14.8 percent of the highest pay grade officers. How do you think this affects the experiences of service members of color?

Retired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs: When I first came into the military, there was no one that looked like me in a lot of the rooms that I entered. When you don’t see people in the room that represent you, you don’t feel heard. They don’t understand where we’re coming from or how it makes us feel to not see someone that looks like us in higher rank positions. How can they decide uniform policies like how my hair should be, or how the makeup fits my face, or what color is my natural hair color? Those things came up a lot in the military. It affects morale, and it affects people wanting to join.

I was very heavy on joining an organization that promoted diversity because I thought it was important that men, women, Black, white, different nationalities be represented. It gave me a greater understanding of their perspective, and I was able to share my perspective. We were able to gather our thoughts, our differences, and come up with a common solution that would make everybody feel included.

ACLU: Disciplinary hearings affecting service members are reviewed by the military’s own judge panel. How important is it to have leadership that represents the diversity of service members and understands different upbringings?

Retired Chief Master Sgt. Flagg-Briggs: That is extremely important. Sometimes when the decisions are made, it perpetuates in your mind that there’s no way they understand who I am or what I represent, because that opinion doesn’t sound like it is for me. There have been examples where there was one type of solution or punishment that was going to be put upon a person and because I was in the room, I helped them understand that it wasn’t as they saw it. The relief that they got from having me in the room was astounding. Many times I was the only woman of color or the only person of color in the room, and I was always opinionated and spoke for folk that were on the line. That was truly important during my 35 years of service. Rising to the rank of Chief, it made me more aware. It helped me help others to understand why it’s important to get in the room, earn more rank, so that we can be better understood, and we could share our experiences and other folks would understand as well.

ACLU: Could you tell us about your time in the military and why you decided to join?

Veteran Mintlow: When I joined, it was about me getting money for school. But as you’re gaining education and knowledge of what this branch has gone through, the wars it has fought and won for our country, and you built a relationship with the branch, you learn the importance. So then it becomes, I served my country, I did my part, I put my life on the line.

ACLU: The military imposes certain uniform requirements that can disproportionately impact people of color. Did the uniform requirements affect your time in the military?

Veteran Mintlow: It wasn’t necessarily uniforms that were my issue. It was the weight requirement. Once you hit the maximum weight requirement, they will do what’s called a body fat measurement. When they do that for women, they measure our necks, our waists, and hips. I still believe that is not a fair measurement for women of color. In my culture and as a Black woman, the widest part of my body is my hips, and there is nothing I can do about it. There are some things that we cannot fix, and to have that held against me, it negatively impacted my military career. I was at a point in my career where I was supposed to get a meritorious promotion, but did not get it because I was considered overweight by their metrics.

ACLU: Why is it important to have representation in the military?

Veteran Mintlow: It’s important to have a diverse population amongst enlisted members and officers so that people who are not in the military have an opportunity to see themselves in the military. When I wasn’t in the military, every person I saw in the Marine Corps was a man. So while I was at my recruiter’s office, they had a poster on the wall of a Black woman in a blue dress, and I said, I need to see her in real life. When I went to the Military Entrance Processing Station, which is where you do your swearing in and you sign all your paperwork, I met a Black woman. She was my visual. I knew I could do this because she looked like me and she did it. It’s very important to have those role models and those mentors in real life. When we see people who are like us, doing these things, it gives us the initiative, the drive, and the inspiration to know that we can do those things, too.

Over the last decade, California has built up some of the nation’s strongest driver privacy protections, thanks to the hard work of activists, civil rights groups, and elected leaders.

One law in particular, often called SB 34, prohibits police from circulating detailed maps of people’s driving patterns with the federal government and agencies in other states– a protection that has only grown more important with the end of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent surge in abortion criminalization.

But dozens of California police departments have decided to defy the law, even after receiving clear guidance from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the chief law enforcement officer in the state. Last month the ACLU of Northern California and our partners sent Attorney General Bonta a letter listing 35 police agencies that have refused to comply with the law and protect driver privacy.

We should all be able to drive to a doctor’s office, place of worship, or political rally without being tracked and cataloged by police agencies. But for years now, police have used automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to record and track the movements of drivers on a previously unseen scale. These systems allow police to collect and store information about drivers whose cars pass through ALPR cameras’ fields of view, which, along with the date and time of capture, can reveal sensitive details about our movements and, as a result, our private lives.

You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans' Movements

The ACLU has long seen the danger ALPR surveillance poses, and working alongside communities on the ground, has fought to bolster California’s legal protections for driver privacy. For over a decade, we have conducted investigations, advocacy, and litigation focused on how police agencies use ALPR to track law-abiding drivers, amass hordes of sensitive information, and use it to harm people.

In the wake of ACLU’s groundbreaking report on ALPR across the US, we called out police use of ALPRs in 2013 as a threat to driver privacy and warned that California lacked statewide driver privacy protections. In 2016, thanks in part to the advocacy of the ACLU and allies, the California legislature passed SB 34, the law at issue today. In 2019 we discovered Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) exploitation of ALPR-collected information to track and target immigrants in California and across the United States.

From there, we took action to enforce California’s driver privacy protections. In 2021 we sued Marin County, California for illegally sharing millions of local drivers’ license plates and locations with federal and out-of-state agencies, including ICE. The sheriff eventually agreed to comply with SB 34 as part of a settlement agreement, but we believed that many other California police agencies were still violating SB 34.

We rang the alarm again in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Alongside our partners at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Southern California, we sent letters to over 70 law enforcement agencies in California demanding they stop sharing people’s driving patterns with states that have criminalized abortion care. We also notified the attorney general’s office of these violations.

Following our letters, the attorney general issued instructions to police across the state to follow SB 34’s plain text and cease sharing license plate information with state and federal agencies outside California. While some agencies have come into compliance, many police are digging in and refusing to follow the law. Police lobbyists have even asked the attorney general to withdraw his interpretation of the law.

Simply put, the position touted by police agencies and their lobbyists puts Californians at risk. SB 34 is important because when police track and share the locations of law-abiding drivers, that information can easily be used to facilitate racist policing, punitive fees, and the discriminatory targeting of people in California and beyond. And, as our letters warned, when California shares ALPR information with authorities in states with anti-abortion or anti-trans laws, police and prosecutors gain new power to track and prosecute people who traveled to California to receive reproductive or gender-affirming care.

We should all be able to travel safely on the state’s roads without our movements being handed to authorities outside the state. That is why we have continued to push California police agencies to follow California’s driver privacy law. And it’s why we have supported localities that reject ALPR programs at odds with their values.

It is unacceptable that police agencies charged with enforcing laws are refusing to comply with this one. While we are pleased with Attorney General Bonta’s strong statement on SB 34, we urge the attorney general to use all available means at his disposal to ensure compliance. And rest assured, that the ACLU will continue fighting to enact and enforce protections that keep all of us safe, no matter where we go in the state.

This article was originally featured on the blog of the ACLU of Northern California.