A hidden camera captured startling revelations within the halls of North Carolina A&T State University, exposing a deliberate effort to circumvent recent policies aimed at curtailing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Administrators, speaking candidly to an undercover journalist, detailed how they’ve subtly reshaped their programs to continue operating despite new restrictions.
The recordings, made in August and September, surfaced after the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors moved to prioritize “institutional neutrality,” effectively signaling a pullback from DEI-focused programs. But within the Office of Intercultural Engagement at North Carolina A&T, the work continued, masked by a strategic shift in language and presentation.
“It shook things up around here, but fortunately for us, this office is not actually under the DEI office at all, so we’re able to just keep going,” explained Pascha Miller, assistant director. “We just… switched up our, you know, changed the wording of things.” The change wasn’t about altering the core mission, but rather about navigating the new political landscape.
Michael Eccles, the office manager, revealed a key tactic: replacing the word “diversity” with “competency.” When asked if this was a “creative naming” strategy, he responded with a knowing “Yes,” even describing it as “cleverly” executed. It was a calculated move to maintain the essence of their work while appearing to comply with the new regulations.
Austin Horne, assistant director of LGBTA Programs and Services, acknowledged the restrictive legislation, describing it as “intentionally vague.” This ambiguity, he suggested, allowed each university to interpret the rules in its own way, and to assess its risk of legal challenges. He noted that, remarkably, only one position across the state system had been eliminated, with most roles simply redefined.
The journalist pressed Horne directly: “To get around the legislation?” Horne’s response was telling. “Well, it’s not even to get around the legislation… it’s giving us 11 rules for what we can and cannot say.” He explained that while some universities had deemed the restrictions too onerous and eliminated positions, North Carolina A&T chose a different path – one of careful wording and strategic shielding from potential lawsuits.
Horne admitted the effort was, in part, “to appease the politicians.” The legislation’s vagueness, he reiterated, was key, allowing the university to navigate a complex situation while continuing to support its core values. It was a delicate balancing act, driven by a desire to avoid conflict and maintain operational capacity.
Eccles further emphasized the ongoing commitment, stating, “It’s been a little bit of a challenge, but we’re still pushing through and trying to make sure people get what they need.” Even acknowledging the difficulty of avoiding the term “DEI” altogether, Miller laughed and admitted, “We try not to, you know, just to be safe.”
These revelations are part of a growing trend, with reports surfacing of universities across the country rebranding their DEI efforts to avoid scrutiny. The situation highlights a tension between evolving political pressures and a commitment to fostering inclusive environments within higher education.
