We, the undersigned University of Michigan Law School alumni, write to express our shock and disappointment regarding both the University’s termination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion (commonly referred to as “DEI”) initiatives and the Law School’s tepid response to this decision. While the Law School has stated that it does not expect this decision to affect its educational offerings, we respectfully—and strongly—disagree. The decision to end all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives does not simply shutter offices, terminate employees without cause, and place student scholarships at risk (reason enough to resist the decision), but also signals to the world that Michigan no longer welcomes the Leaders & Best.

Across the country, both the legal profession and the rule of law are being eroded every day. Few institutions are as well-resourced as Michigan, yet many with far less are fighting much harder to preserve democratic ideals and protect the public. As one of the top public universities in the country, Michigan owes it to its students, faculty, and community to resist all attacks that are not justified by law or fact. In turn, the Law School has its own responsibility to protect and defend the rule of law, due in no small part to its expertise, institutional standing, ethical obligations, and reputation for academic excellence. 

University President Santa Ono’s decision to terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the University of Michigan is an affirmative choice to contribute to the hostility and fear currently being experienced by people of color (particularly Black, brown, and Native people), LGBTQ+ people (especially those who are trans*), immigrants and their children, and those who live at the intersection of these identities. Many of us count ourselves members of these groups. Many of us went to law school to be better equipped to fight for their—our—dignity. All of us are stunned that the decision to terminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at Michigan may now put us at odds with the very institution that empowered us to fight injustice and taught us to respect the rule of law. 

As alumni and attorneys, we expect the Law School to recognize that the executive orders and Dear Colleague Letter that President Ono cited in his decision are baseless and morally abhorrent. In particular, the Dear Colleague Letter incorrectly indicates that the Supreme Court held in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College[1] (“SFFA”) that schools cannot consider race in any aspect of education.[2] This is patently false. Chief Justice John Roberts was explicit in limiting the decision to admissions, noting that it does not “prohibit[] universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.”[3] 

After the decision was issued, President Ono acknowledged SFFA’s limitations, issuing a statement that SFFA “significantly narrow[s] how race can be considered in admissions policies.”[4] In that same statement, President Ono reaffirmed the University’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Now, less than two years later, and despite the fact that the University submitted an amicus brief in SFFA supporting the consideration of race in admissions, President Ono has reversed course with apparent ease. 

Rather than fight back against attempts to bully and extract compliance, the University has preemptively capitulated. This preemptive capitulation is all the more shameful given Michigan’s public education commitment, vast resources, and history of successfully defending the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

The University of Michigan is first and foremost a public education institution, whose mission should include a commitment to serve the public. For ten years, the Law School spoke with pride of its success in defending its affirmative action policies in Grutter v. Bollinger,[5] using this case as evidence of Michigan’s expertise at using its immense resources for the benefit of Michigan students and the public. However, this expertise matters only if we call upon it in times of strife and struggle. 

The Law School recently failed to openly condemn attacks on the rule of law. On March 26, 2025, deans from 79 law schools signed a letter reaffirming the Constitution and condemning attempts to punish lawyers simply because of who they represent.[6] Notably absent from the signatories were the deans from all top ten law schools, including the University of Michigan Law School. The American Bar Association and bar associations across the country have also issued strong reminders about our nation’s democratic principles and the importance of the rule of law.[7] In contrast, the silence from our alma mater is deafening. To continue recruiting the Leaders & Best, the Law School must first step up and be one.

It is no secret that institutions of higher education are currently facing unprecedented external threats, forcing them to reconsider how to best serve their students. But the University should exercise courage in the face of fear, if for no other reason than because capitulation invites further attack. 

In the days since President Ono announced his decision, current Michigan law students have been individually targeted by external agitators, causing fear and confusion. These students need support and guidance, and that should come from Michigan itself. Students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the world are watching to see how the University and the Law School respond to this moment. To date, that response has fallen short. 

We are, however, not without hope. Given the relationships we have built at and because of Michigan, we expect that many in the Law School agree with much if not all of the above. We ask that Law School leadership reconsider how it can best represent and serve its students, alumni, staff, and faculty by openly resisting the decision to terminate the University of Michigan’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and by denouncing the unprecedented attacks on Michigan Law students, our profession, and the rule of law. 

Sincerely,

Sami Miyahara Hall, 2015

GeDá Jones Herbert, 2014

Rebecca Salley, 2016

Christopher Burtley, 2015

and Concerned University of Michigan Law School Alumni

 
[1] 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
[2] https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf 
[3] SFFA, 600 U.S. at 230; see also https://www.mass.gov/doc/legal-guidance-regarding-students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-harvard-and-lawfully-promoting-access-to-educational-opportunity-02262025/download at 1-2, 6. 
[4] https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/affirmative-action/ (emphasis added).
[5] 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
[6] https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2025/03/03.26.25_Deans-Letter-Final.pdf
[7] https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/bar-organizations-statement-in-support-of-rule-of-law/ and https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/aba-rejects-efforts-to-undermine-courts-and-legal-profession/